Edwards et al v. National Milk Producers Federation et al

Filing 408

ORDER RE MOTIONS TO FILE UNDER SEAL; GRANTING DOCKET NOS. 397 AND 406 AND PROVIDING FINAL OPPORTUNITY FOR DEFENDANTS TO SHOW COMPELLING REASONS RE DOCKET NO 402 . Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on 2/12/16. (jjoS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/12/2016) Modified on 2/12/2016 (jjoS, COURT STAFF).

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

MATTHEW EDWARDS, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No. 11-cv-04766-JSW

v.
NATIONAL MILK PRODUCERS
FEDERATION, et al.,
Defendants.

12

ORDER RE MOTIONS TO FILE
UNDER SEAL: GRANTING DOCKET
NOS. 397 AND 406 AND PROVIDING
FINAL OPPORTUNITY FOR
DEFENDANTS TO SHOW
COMPELLING REASONS
RE DOCKET NO. 402
Re: Dkt. Nos. 397, 402, 406

13
14

Now pending are three motions to filed documents under seal. (Dkt. Nos. 397, 402, 406.)

15

Defendants’ two pending administrative motions to file documents under seal (Dkt. Nos.

16

397 and 406) are unopposed. Defendants have filed public, redacted versions of the documents to

17

be filed under seal. The Court finds that the proposed redactions are narrowly tailored and that, in

18

Defendants’ declarations, Defendants have shown compelling reasons to file the unredacted

19

versions under seal. See Center for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Group, LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1103 (9th

20

Cir. 2016). Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ administrative motions to file under

21

seal (Dkt. Nos. 397 and 406).

22

Plaintiffs filed their administrative motion to seal (Dkt. No. 402) pursuant to Civil Local

23

Rule 79-5(d) and (e), to submit documents designated as “Confidential” or “Highly Confidential”

24

by Defendants under the protective order in place in this action. Plaintiffs’ motion takes the

25

position that the information should be publicly filed. Under Civil Local Rule 79-5(e), if

26

Defendants contend that the designated material is sealable, Defendants should have filed a

27

declaration as required by Civil Local Rule 79-5(d)(1)(A) within four days after the filing of

28

Plaintiffs’ administrative motion. Defendants have not done so. It is unclear whether Defendants

1

fail to file a declaration because they concur that the materia at issue is not sealable or through
led
d
b
y
t
al
e,

2

ove
ersight. The Court could now deny the motion, but, in the e
e
d
exercise of di
iscretion, pro
ovides

3

De
efendants wit one final opportunity to establish that the info
th
o
ormation ma be filed un
ay
nder seal.

4

If Defen
ndants conte that there are compe
end
elling reason to file und seal the in
ns
der
nformation

5

tha is the subje of Docke No. 402, Defendants m comply fully with C
at
ect
et
D
must
y
Civil Local R 79-5 no
Rule
o

6

late than Febru
er
uary 19, 201 In additi to a decla
16.
ion
aration show
wing compel
lling reasons to file the
s

7

inf
formation un
nder seal, the Court hereb orders De
e
by
efendants to file propose redacted v
ed
versions of

8

any documents containing information that they se to have f
y
s
n
eek
filed under se The red
eal.
dacted

9

ver
rsions must be narrowly tailored to redact only in
b
r
nformation f which co
for
ompelling re
easons exist
to overcome th strong pre
o
he
esumption in favor of acc
n
cess to court records. C
t
Center for Au Safety,
uto

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

809 F.3d at 109 see also id. at 1100 (citing In re Midland Na Life Ins. Co. Annuity Sales
9
96;
(
at’l
y

12

Pra
actices Litig 686 F.3d 1115, 1118-1
g.,
1
1120 (9th Ci 2012)). T Court RE
ir.
The
ESERVES R
RULING on

13

Do
ocket No. 402 pending Defendants’ response, if a
2
D
r
any, to this f
final opportu
unity to estab
blish that the
e

14

inf
formation ma be filed under seal.
ay
u

15
16

IT IS SO ORDER
S
RED.
Da
ated: Februar 12, 2016
ry

17
18
JE
EFFREY S. W
WHITE
Un
nited States D
District Judg
ge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2