ACP, Inc. v. Skypatrol, LLC et al

Filing 117

ORDER by Judge Maria-Elena James denying 112 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal. (mejlc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/30/2017)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

ACP, INC.,

Case No. 13-cv-01572-PJH (MEJ)
Plaintiff,

8

ORDER RE: MOTION TO FILE UNDER
SEAL

v.
9
10

Re: Dkt. No. 112

SKYPATROL, LLC, et al.,
Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

In connection with a joint discovery letter (see Rog. Ltr., Dkt. No. 111), Plaintiff ACP, Inc.

14

(“ACP”) seeks to file under seal portions of Defendant Gordon Howard Associates, Inc.‟s

15

(“Gordon Howard”) Response to ACP‟s First Set of Interrogatories (the “Response”). Mot., Dkt.

16

No. 112. ACP explains the parties intend to file Gordon Howard‟s Response to be Exhibit A to

17

their joint discovery letter. Id. at 1; see Rog. Ltr. Specifically, ACP requests certain redactions

18

located on (1) page 6, line 7; (2) page 7, line 17; (3) page 8, line 7; (4) page 16, lines 15 and 16;

19

and (5) page 23, lines 3, 4, 5, and 6. Id.; see id., Ex. A (proposed redactions). ACP contends

20

Gordon Howard designated these portions as “Confidential” or “Highly Confidential – Attorneys‟

21

Eyes Only.” Mot. at 1. Gordon Howard did not respond to the Motion. For the reasons set forth

22

below, the Court DENIES ACP‟s Motion.

23

DISCUSSION

24

The good cause standard applies here. See Oliner v. Kontrabecki, 745 F.3d 1024, 1026

25

(9th Cir. 2014) (the “less exacting „good cause‟ standard applies to private materials unearthed

26

during discovery[.]” (internal quotation marks omitted)). ACP‟s only basis for sealing portions of

27

Gordon Howard‟s Response is that Gordon Howard designated them as “Confidential” or “Highly

28

Confidential – Attorneys‟ Eyes Only” pursuant to the parties‟ Stipulated Protective Order. Mot. at

1

1. This alone is insufficient to justify sealing. See Civ. L.R. 79-5 (d)(1)(A) (“Reference to a

2

stipulation or protective order that allows a party to designate certain documents as confidential is

3

not sufficient to establish that a document, or portions thereof, are sealable.”). Rather,

4
5
6
7

[i]f the Submitting Party is seeking to file under seal a document
designated as confidential by the opposing party or a non-party
pursuant to a protective order . . . . [w]ithin 4 days of the filing of
the Administrative Motion to File Under Seal, the Designating Party
must file a declaration as required by subsection 79-5(d)(1)(A)
establishing that all of the designated material is sealable.

8

Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1). Gordon Howard, as the Designating Party, did not file a declaration as

9

required by Civil Local Rule 79-5(e)(1) and thus fails to establish that good causes exists to accept

10

ACP‟s proposed redactions.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

CONCLUSION

12

The Court DENIES ACP‟s Motion to File Under Seal. ACP shall file an unredacted

13
14

version of Gordon Howard‟s Response by February 3, 2017.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

15
16
17
18

Dated: January 30, 2017
______________________________________
MARIA-ELENA JAMES
United States Magistrate Judge

19
20
21

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2