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)

Download PDF
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?