Wood v. IGATE Technologies, Inc.

Filing 85

ORDER DENYING, WITHOUT PREJUDICE: 83 Renewed Administrative Motion to File Under Seal. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on July 18, 2016. (jswlc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/18/2016)

1
2
3
4
5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8

BARBARA WOOD,

9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12

No. C 15-00799 JSW

Plaintiff,
v.
IGATE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
Defendant.
/

ORDER DENYING RENEWED
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO
FILE EXHIBITS TO
DECLARATION UNDER SEAL

13
14

The Court has received and considered Defendant iGate Technologies, Inc.

15

(“Defendant”)’s renewed administrative motion to file the entirety of the exhibits attached to

16

the declaration of Sacha M. Steenhoek in support of its motion for summary judgment under

17

seal. Plaintiff has not opposed the motion, and the matter is ripe for resolution. See N.D. Civ.

18

L.R. 79-5. The Court rejected Defendant’s first attempt to seal all the documents and all the

19

testimony attached to the Steenhoek declaration.

20

“Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records

21

and documents.’” Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir.

22

2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). The

23

Court starts with a strong presumption in favor of public access to a document, unless it is one

24

that is traditionally kept secret. Id.

25

In order to overcome this presumption, Defendant must demonstrate “compelling

26

reasons supported by specific factual findings, . . . that outweigh the general history of access

27

and the public policies favoring disclosure, such as the public interest in understanding the

28

judicial process.” Id. at 1178-79 (internal quotations and citations omitted).

1

In their first request, Defendant merely stated that the documents were sealable under

2

the parties’ protective order. Finding this insufficient, the Court denied the motion with leave.

3

In the renewed request, Defendant again seeks to seal the entire set of documents and all

4

testimony (with the exception of the cover page of the deposition identifying the witness).

5

Again, there is no compelling reason to place the entirety of all exhibits and all testimony to the

6

Steenhoek declaration under seal. Only selected portions of the parties’ submissions may refer

7

to protected information. Therefore, the Court DENIES the motion to seal.

8

This ruling is again without prejudice to Defendant renewing the motion one final time.

portions of the testimony (by page and line number) or specific portions or all of the documents

11
For the Northern District of California

However, any renewed motion must be supported by specific facts demonstrating that specific

10

United States District Court

9

should be sealed. If Defendant seeks to maintain any particular excerpts under seal, it must file

12

a renewed motion with the detailed excerpts to be filed under seal by no later than July 25,

13

2016. In the absence of a renewed motion for filing specific portions of the exhibits under seal

14

in compliance with this Court’s order and an explanation why each specific portion (by page

15

and line number for deposition testimony or specific portion or all of a document) is sealable,

16

the Court shall direct the Clerk to file the declaration and its exhibits in the public record.

17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 18, 2016
JEFFREY S. WHITE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2