Tucker et al v. Wright Medical Technology, Inc. et al

Filing 99

ORDER by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers DENYING 94 MOTION TO PLACE CERTAIN EXHIBITS UNDER SEAL. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/4/2013)

Download PDF
1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 6 7 8 GREGORY K. TUCKER and REBECCA TUCKER, 9 10 Plaintiffs, Case No.: 11-cv-03086-YGR ORDER DENYING MOTION TO PLACE CERTAIN EXHIBITS UNDER SEAL v. 11 Northern District of California United States District Court 12 13 WRIGHT MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY, INC. et al., Defendants. 14 15 On December 18, 2012, Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Place Certain Exhibits Under Seal 16 (“Motion”). (Dkt. No. 94.) At issue in the Motion are various deposition transcripts, including that of 17 Plaintiff Gregory Tucker, and documents produced by Defendants in this action (“Documents at 18 Issue”). The Documents at Issue are attached as exhibits to declarations in support of Plaintiffs’ 19 oppositions to Defendants’ pending motion for summary judgment and various motions to exclude 20 expert testimony. 21 The Motion indicates that certain pages from the deposition transcripts of Jorge Ochoa and 22 Brad James were designated as Confidential by Defendants pursuant to the protective Order in this 23 action. (Motion at 2, ¶ 4.) The Motion also indicates that the documents produced by Defendants 24 have been designated Confidential pursuant to the protective order. (Id. at 2, ¶ 6.) It is unclear to the 25 Court what the basis of the Motion is for the deposition transcripts of Gregory Tucker and Lester 26 Hendrickson, although the Court presumes that the transcripts have also been designated as 27 Confidential by Defendants under the protective order. 28 Under Civ. L.R. 79-5(d), which addresses “Filing a Document Designated Confidential by 1 2 Another Party,” a non-designating party wishing to file a document designated confidential must file 3 and serve an administrative motion to seal and lodge the document or memorandum in accordance 4 with the Local Rule. “Within 7 days thereafter, the designating party must file with the Court and 5 serve a declaration establishing that the designated information is sealable, and must lodge and serve a 6 narrowly tailored proposed sealing order, or must withdraw the designation of confidentiality. If the 7 designating party does not file its responsive declaration as required by this subsection, the document 8 or proposed filing will be made part of the public record.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(d). Plaintiffs filed the pending Motion at least in part because Defendants have designated the 9 the designated exhibits at issue in the Motion are sealable, nor did counsel lodge and serve a 12 Northern District of California Documents at Issue as Confidential. Defendants, however, did not file a declaration establishing that 11 United States District Court 10 narrowly-tailored proposed sealing order or withdraw the designation of confidentiality. See Civ. 13 L.R. 79-5(d). As such, the Court DENIES the Motion for failure to comply with Civ. L.R. 79-5(d).1 14 To the extent that Plaintiffs themselves sought to seal any Documents at Issue because they believe 15 those documents should be sealed, the Court DENIES the Motion for failure to establish that there are 16 compelling reasons warranting sealing and that the proposed sealing order is narrowly tailored. See 17 Civ. L.R. 79-5(a); Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010). 18 The Documents at Issue in this Motion must be publicly-filed by Plaintiffs no later than 19 Tuesday, January 8, 2013. Plaintiffs must immediately provide Chambers copies of all publicly-filed 20 exhibits, with the ECF headers reflecting the filing date and docket item number. The Chambers 21 copies must be three-hole punched, to be inserted in to the Chambers binders previously submitted. 22 This Order terminates Dkt. No. 94. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 25 Dated: January 4, 2013 _________________________________________ 26 YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 27 28 1 The Court further notes that “[a] stipulation . . . that allows a party to designate documents as sealable, will not suffice to allow the filing of documents under seal.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(a) (emphasis supplied). 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?