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)

Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?