Alsabur v. Autozone, Inc.

Filing 64

ORDER Denying Plaintiff's 61 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal . Plaintiff may either submit an amended motion to file under seal or file an unredacted version of [60-1] Mr. Alsabur's declaration in support of his opposition on or before 6/13/2014. Signed by Judge Kandis A. Westmore on 6/6/2014. (kawlc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/6/2014)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
JOWHAR ALSABUR,

7

Case No. 13-cv-01689-KAW

Plaintiff,
8

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE
UNDER SEAL

v.
9
AUTOZONE, INC.,

10

(Dkt. No. 61)

Defendant.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
On May 29, 2014, Plaintiff Jowhar Alsabur filed an administrative motion to file under

13
14

seal exhibits to Plaintiff Jowhar Alsabur’s declaration in support of his opposition to Defendant’s

15

motion for summary judgment. (Dkt. No. 61.)1
As an initial matter, the chambers copies of the unredacted version do not conform to Civil

16
17

Local Rule 79-5(d)(2), which requires Plaintiff to:

18

Provide a courtesy copy of the administrative motion, declaration,
proposed order, and both the redacted and unredacted versions of all
documents sought to be sealed, in accordance with Civil L.R. 51(e)(7).

19
20

The courtesy copy of unredacted declarations and exhibits should be
presented in the same form as if no sealing order was being sought.
In other words, if a party is seeking to file under seal one or more
exhibits to a declaration, or portions thereof, the courtesy copy
should include the declaration with all of the exhibits attached,
including the exhibits, or portions thereof, sought to be filed under
seal, with the portions to be sealed highlighted or clearly noted as
subject to a sealing motion.

21
22
23
24
25

Plaintiff’s unredacted copies consist of a single stack of bates stamped papers attached with a

26
27
28

1

Plaintiff’s administrative motion is erroneously captioned as seeking to seal exhibits to Ms.
Varlack’s declaration (Dkt. No. 60-3) when the exhibits actually correspond to Mr. Alsabur’s
declaration (Dkt. No. 60-1).

1

small binder clip. The unredacted, chambers copies of both Mr. Alsabur’s declaration and the

2

motion to seal should have been submitted in the same form as the filed, redacted copies with the

3

redacted portions highlighted, including the tabs and those exhibits that are not sought to be

4

sealed. Reviewing the information in the present form is too onerous an undertaking for the

5

Court.
As to the merits, Plaintiff essentially attempts to submit entire documents under seal, and

7

has taken no steps to appropriately redact them. Plaintiff requests a sealing order on the grounds

8

that Defendant produced them pursuant to a stipulated protective order. After a cursory review of

9

the documents, the Court finds that some of the information contained is clearly not appropriate

10

for sealing, such as the names and information contained in the publicly-filed declaration. (See

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

6

generally Decl. of Tiega-Noel Varlack, “Varlack Decl.,” Dkt. No. 61-1.) Further, pursuant to

12

Civil Local Rule 79-5(e), Plaintiff’s administrative motion “must identify the document or

13

portions thereof which contain the designated confidential material and identify the party that has

14

designated the material as confidential (‘the Designating Party’).” Defendant, as the Designating

15

Party, must then submit a responsive declaration with four days of Plaintiff’s motion to show that

16

all designated matter was sealable. See Civil L.R. 79-5(e)(1)-(2). Defendant did not file any such

17

declaration.

18

In light of the deficiencies in Plaintiff’s administrative motion to seal, the motion to seal is

19

denied without prejudice. Plaintiff may submit an amended administrative motion to seal within

20

seven days of this order, which much comply with Civil Local Rule 79-5, which requires the

21

submission of a separate, unredacted chambers copy of Plaintiff’s declaration in support of his

22

opposition. In the alternative, Plaintiff may file an unredacted version of Mr. Alsabur’s

23

declaration in support of his opposition, and all accompanying exhibits, within seven days of this

24

order, thereby abandoning his motion to seal. Failure to take action within seven days of this

25

order will result in the Court being unable to consider the exhibits sought to be sealed. See Civil

26

L.R. 79-5(f)(2).

27
28

Additionally, the Court notes that at least one exhibit, bates stamped document D01573 in
Exhibit D, is incorrectly described as being dated November 4, 2010, when it was actually dated
2

1

November 2, 2010. (See Varlack Decl. ¶ 5; Ex. D). The Court trusts that if Plaintiff files an

2

amended motion that all information provided will be accurate.

3
4
5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 6, 2014
______________________________________
KANDIS A. WESTMORE
United States Magistrate Judge

7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3