City of Oakland v. SSA Terminals, LLC et al

Filing 176

ORDER by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers denying 147 Plaintiff's Administrative Motion to File Under Seal (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/23/2013)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5
6
7
8
9

CITY OF OAKLAND, a Municipal
Corporation, Acting By and Through Its Board
of Port Commissioners,

Northern District of California

United States District Court

12
13

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
FILE UNDER SEAL

Plaintiff-Counterclaim Defendant,

10
11

Case No.: 11-01446-YGR

v.
SSA TERMINALS, LLC, et al.,
Defendants-Counterclaimants.

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

Plaintiff City of Oakland (“City”) filed an Administrative Motion to File Under Seal
(“Motion”) on April 15, 2013. (Dkt. No. 147.) The City seeks a sealing order for Exhibits C and E to
the Declaration of Richard T. White in Support of Plaintiff and Counterdefendant’s Motions in
Limine 1–5 because the documents have been designated “Highly Confidential” and “Attorney’s
Eyes Only” pursuant to the Protective Order in this action. The City states that Defendants
designated the documents as confidential.
This Motion falls under Civ. L.R. 79-5(d), which addresses “Filing a Document Designated

22

Confidential by Another Party.” L.R. 79-5(d) states that a non-designating party wishing to file a

23

document designated confidential must file and serve an administrative motion to seal and lodge the

24

document or memorandum in accordance with the Local Rule. “Within 7 days thereafter, the

25

designating party must file with the Court and serve a declaration establishing that the designated

26

information is sealable, and must lodge and serve a narrowly tailored proposed sealing order, or must

27

withdraw the designation of confidentiality. If the designating party does not file its responsive

28

declaration as required by this subsection, the document or proposed filing will be made part of the

1
2

public record.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(d).
The City filed this Motion because Exhibits C and E were marked “Highly Confidential” and

3

“Attorney’s Eyes Only” under Protective Order by Defendants. Defendants, however, did not file a

4

declaration establishing that the designated exhibits at issue in the Motion are sealable, nor did

5

counsel lodge and serve a narrowly-tailored proposed sealing order or withdraw the designation of

6

confidentiality. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(d). Moreover, Civ. L.R. 79-5(a) specifically provides that “[a]

7
8
9
10
11

Northern District of California

United States District Court

12
13
14

stipulation, or a blanket protective order that allows a party to designate documents as sealable, will
not suffice to allow the filing of documents under seal.”
Having failed to establish that either Exhibit C or E is sealable under Civ. L.R. 79-5(a), the
Administrative Motion to File Under Seal is hereby DENIED.
The Clerk shall unlock Exhibits C and E of Dkt. No. 142, which is currently locked pursuant
to this Court’s Order (Dkt. No. 151).
This Order terminates Dkt. No. 147.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

15
16

Dated: April 23, 2013

17

_________________________________________

18

YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2