Carnahan v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company et al

Filing 39

ORDER by Judge ARMSTRONG denying 37 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; denying 32 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/25/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8

OAKLAND DIVISION

9
10 SUSAN CARNAHAN,

Plaintiff,

11
12

vs.

13 METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE

Case No: C 11-3064 SBA
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS
FOR A SEALING ORDER
Docket 32, 37

COMPANY and THE SHAW GROUP INC.
14 LONG TERM DISABILITY
PLANDEFENDANT,
15

Defendants.
16
17
18

Plaintiff has filed two administrative motions for orders to seal various documents

19

relating to the parties’ pending motions. Dkt. 32, 37. Civil Local Rule 79-5(a) provides, in

20

relevant part, that: “The request [to seal] must be narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of

21

sealable material, and must conform with Civil L.R. 79-5(b) or (c).” Here, Plaintiff

22

predicates its sealing requests on the fact that Defendant has designated its Claim

23

Management Guidelines as confidential. While the confidentiality of the Claim

24

Management Guidelines may justify redaction of part of the subject documents, Plaintiff

25

has failed to show that it justifies sealing each document in its entirety. Accordingly,

26
27
28

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Plaintiff’s Administrative Motions to Seal are
DENIED without prejudice. Plaintiff may resubmit a single motion to seal portions of the

1

documents in accordance with Civil Local Rule 79-5. This Order terminates Docket 32 and

2

37.

3
4

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 24, 2012

_______________________________
SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG
United States District Judge

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-