City of Oakland v. SSA Terminals, LLC et al
Filing
84
ORDER FOR DEFENDANT TO SUBMIT DOCUMENTS FOR IN CAMERA REVIEW. Signed by Judge Maria-Elena James on 3/28/2012. (cdnS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/28/2012)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
Northern District of California
9
10
CITY OF OAKLAND,
Plaintiff,
11
No. C 11-1446 YGR (MEJ)
ORDER FOR IN CAMERA REVIEW
12
For the Northern District of California
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
v.
Re: Docket Nos. 62, 68, 69, and 76
SSA TERMINALS, LLC., et al.,
13
14
15
Defendants.
_____________________________________/
On February 3, 2012, the parties filed a joint discovery dispute letter regarding the scope of a
16 proposed protective order. Dkt. No. 62. After reviewing the joint letter, the Court ordered the parties
17 to each submit supplemental letters. Dkt. No. 65. The Court has considered the parties’ positions
18 and hereby orders as follows:
19
1. Any documents that Defendant wants to prohibit Plaintiff’s in-house counsel (David
20 Alexander and Donnell Choy) from having access to must be submitted to the Court by Friday,
21 March 30, 2012 for in camera review.
22
2. From the parties’ last letter, it appears Defendant believes that some of the documents at
23 issue will be used during trial. See Dkt. No. 76. The Court notes that this Circuit has a strict standard
24 for sealing documents from the public. See Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122
25 (9th Cir. 2003); Contratto v. Ethicon, Inc., 227 F.R.D. 304 (N.D. Cal. 2005). Accordingly, any
26 request from Defendant to withhold documents from Plaintiff’s in-house counsel must be narrowly
27 tailored. See Civ. Loc. R. 79-5.
28
3. In connection with its submission of the documents, Defendant must provide a declaration
1 that specifically explains why each document or each redaction in a document should not be available
2 to Plaintiff’s in-house counsel. This declaration must also explain why the documents or redactions
3 at issue can be analyzed by Plaintiff’s outside counsel (Fitzgerald Abbott & Beardsley LLP) in a
4 manner that provides Plaintiff with adequate representation without the involvement of in-house
5 counsel.
6
The Court will issue another order after it conducts an in camera review of the documents and
7 Defendant’s declaration.
8
IT IS SO ORDERED.
9
10 Dated: March 28, 2012
_______________________________
Maria-Elena James
Chief United States Magistrate Judge
12
For the Northern District of California
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
11
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?