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)

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