City of Oakland v. SSA Terminals, LLC et al

Filing 203

ORDER REGARDING ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE UNDER SEAL EXHIBITS C AND E TO THE DECLARATION OF RICHARD T. WHITE IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF AND COUNTER-DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN LIMINE NOS. 1-5 by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers denying as M oot 177 Motion to Remove Incorrectly Filed Document; For reasons stated at pretrial conference Court Grants the motion to seal Exhibit C as to motion in limine stage of proeedings; the Motion to seal as to Exhibit E is Denied; terminating 179 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal. (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/14/2013)

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,
Plaintiff-Counterclaim Defendant,

10
11

Northern District of California

United States District Court

12

v.

Case No.: 11-01446-YGR
ORDER REGARDING ADMINISTRATIVE
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE UNDER SEAL
EXHIBITS C AND E TO THE DECLARATION OF
RICHARD T. WHITE IN SUPPORT OF
PLAINTIFF AND COUNTER-DEFENDANT’S
MOTION IN LIMINE NOS. 1-5

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

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

For the reasons stated at the pretrial conference on May 10, 2013, the Court will allow and
hereby GRANTS the motion to seal Ex. C to the Declaration of Richard T. White in Support of
Plaintiff’s Motions in Limine Nos. 1–5. The Court reserves its decision on whether Ex. C is sealable
beyond the motion in limine stage of the proceedings. The motion to seal as to Ex. E is hereby
DENIED.
The parties are again reminded that Civ. L.R. 79-5(a) specifically provides that “[a]
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.” (Emphasis supplied.) The parties may not
rely simply on a protective order (in this action or from another action) as grounds for sealing at trial.
Moreover, the parties are reminded that the “good cause” standard does not apply to sealing
documents at trial.
Because Plaintiff sought to use Exs. C & E in support of its motions in limine, Plaintiff shall
comply with General Order 62 with regard to proper filing procedures for the sealed documents.

1

Plaintiff shall e-file Ex. C under seal by May 16, 2013. Ex. C of Dkt. No. 142 may remain locked by

2

the Clerk of this Court.

3

The Clerk of this Court shall UNLOCK Ex. E of Dkt. No. 142.

4

Plaintiff’s Motion to Remove Incorrect Filed Documents (Dkt. No. 177) is DENIED AS MOOT.

5

This Order terminates Dkt. Nos. 177 and 179.

6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7
8

Dated: May 14, 2013
_________________________________________

9

YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

10
11

Northern District of California

United States District Court

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2