Ang et al v. Bimbo Bakeries USA, Inc.

Filing 179

ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. DENYING PLAINTIFFS 128 MOTION TO SEAL. (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/21/2018)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

ALEX ANG, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No.13-cv-01196-HSG
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION TO SEAL

v.
BIMBO BAKERIES USA, INC.,

Re: Dkt. No. 128

Defendant.

12
13

Plaintiffs Alex Ang and Lynn Streit filed this unopposed motion to seal on April 17, 2015.

14

Dkt. No. 128. Specifically, Plaintiffs seek leave to file under seal three exhibits to their reply brief

15

in support of their motion for class certification. See id. at 1. All three exhibits have been

16

designated as confidential by Defendant Bimbo Bakeries USA, Inc. See id. Plaintiffs also seek to

17

seal those portions of the reply brief that discuss the substance of the three exhibits. See id.

18

Where litigants seek to seal documents “designated as confidential by the opposing party

19

or a non-party pursuant to a protective order,” their “declaration in support of the Administrative

20

Motion to File Under Seal must identify the document or portions thereof which contain the

21

designated confidential material and identify the party that has designated the material as

22

confidential.” Civil L.R. 79-5(e). Within four days of the filing of the motion to seal and the

23

accompanying declaration, the party that designated the material as confidential “must file a

24

declaration as required by [Civil Local Rule] 79-5(d)(1)(A) establishing that all of the designated

25

material is sealable.” Civil L.R. 79-5(e)(1).

26

Here, after Plaintiffs filed this motion on April 17, 2015, Defendant failed to file a

27

declaration establishing that the material it designated as confidential was sealable. Plaintiffs’

28

motion to seal is accordingly denied, to the extent it seeks to seal materials designated by

1

Defendant as confidential. Moreover, Plaintiffs state in their motion that their reply brief

2

“contains consumer survey data which has been redacted due to confidentiality.” Dkt. No. 128 at

3

1-2. While it is unclear whether this constitutes a request to seal material separate from that

4

designated as confidential by Defendant, it is likewise denied. “A sealing order may issue only

5

upon a request that establishes that the document, or portions thereof, are privileged, protectable as

6

a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law.” Civil L.R. 79-5(b). A conclusory

7

assertion that certain information is confidential is insufficient.

8
9

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs’ motion to seal is DENIED. Plaintiffs may file the
document in the public record “no earlier than 4 days, and no later than 10 days” after the date of
this order, although the Court “may delay the public docketing of the document[s] upon a showing

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

of good cause.” Civil L.R. 79-5(e)(2).

12

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13

Dated: 3/21/2018

14
15
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2