Stitt et al v. Citibank, N.A. et al

Filing 152

ORDER RE: ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO SEAL by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers granting in part and denying in part 115 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting in part and denying in part 126 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting in part and denying in part 136 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal. (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/17/2015)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

GLORIA STITT, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

8
9
10

Case No.: 12-cv-03892 YGR
ORDER RE: ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO
SEAL

vs.
Re: Dkt. Nos. 115, 126, 136
CITIBANK, N.A., et al.,

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Defendants.
12
13

In a separate order concurrently filed, the Court resolves Plaintiffs’ motion for class

14

certification. In connection with that motion, the parties filed four administrative motions to seal,

15

pursuant to this Court’s Civil Local Rule 79-5. The parties subsequently filed a joint submission of

16

table identifying documents sought to be filed (Dkt. No. 150), which narrowed certain requests and

17

withdrew others. This Order resolves the administrative motions to seal.

18

The public holds a presumptive right of access to public records, including pretrial filings in

19

civil cases. See Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178-79 (9th Cir. 2006); In

20

re Midland Nat. Life Ins. Co. Annuity Sales Practices Litig., 686 F.3d 1115, 1119 (9th Cir. 2012).

21

In the context of information proffered in support of dispositive motions or at trial, only a

22

continuing, compelling reason will justify sealing the information or keeping it under seal. See In

23

re Midland, 686 F.3d at 1119. However, “the usual presumption of the public’s right to access does

24

not apply to non-dispositive motions with the same strength it applies to dispositive motions.”

25

Dugan v. Lloyds TSB Bank, PLC, 2013 WL 1435223, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 9, 2013) (citing In re

26

Midland, 686 F.3d at 1119). In the context of non-dispositive motions, the party seeking to place

27

and keep information under seal need only make a showing of good cause. See id. at *1-2. “There

28

may be ‘good cause’ to seal records that are privileged, contain trade secrets, contain confidential

1

research, development or commercial information, or if disclosure of the information might harm a

2

litigant’s competitive standing.” Id. at *2.

3

The Court finds that the parties’ sealing requests as refined in their joint submission are

4

appropriate and narrowly tailored. Accordingly, the motions are all GRANTED IN PART AND

5

DENIED IN PART. The parties shall file all documents sought to be sealed in redacted form

6

consistent with their joint submission (see Dkt. No. 150).

7

This Order terminates Docket Numbers 115, 126, 136.

8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

Date: December 17, 2015
_______________________________________
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2