Corcoran et al v. CVS Health Corporation

Filing 318

ORDER DIRECTING FURTHER SUBMISSION IN SUPPORT OF ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL re 314 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal re: Reply in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment filed by CVS Pharmacy, Inc., 300 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal re: Opposition to Plaintiffs' Amended Motion for Class Certification filed by CVS Pharmacy, Inc., 286 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal re: Motion to Exclude the Opinion Testimony of Dr. Joel Hay filed by CVS Pharmacy, Inc., 281 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal filed by CVS Pharmacy, Inc. Supplemental documents filed by Wednesday, July 12, 2017. Signed by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers on 7/7/17. (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/7/2017)

1
2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
IN AND FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4
5

CHRISTOPHER CORCORAN, ET AL.,

6

Plaintiffs,

7
8

v.
CVS HEALTH, ET AL.,

9

Defendants.

10
11

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 15-cv-3504 YGR
ORDER DIRECTING FURTHER SUBMISSION
IN SUPPORT OF ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION
TO SEAL
Dkt. Nos. 281, 286, 300, 314

Defendants have filed Administrative Motions to File Under Seal at Docket Numbers
281, 286, 300, and 314.

12

The motions do not comply with the requirements of Civil Local Rule 79-5 and/or this

13

Court’s Standing Order In Civil Cases, paragraph 11, with respect to portions related to

14

plaintiffs’ personal information as follows:

15

____

16
17

seeks to remove a document from the record without making a motion to file under seal
an unredacted version of the document;

____

does not include a declaration establishing that the documents sought to be filed under

18

seal, or portions thereof, are sealable under the standard appropriate to the underlying

19

motion. Reference to a stipulation or protective order that allows a party to designate

20

certain documents as confidential is not sufficient to establish that documents, or portions

21

thereof, are sealable. See Civ. L. R. 79-5(d)(1)(A); Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass'n, 565

22

F.3d 1106, 1115-16 (9th Cir. 2009); Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d
1172, 1178 (9th Cir.2006).

23
24

____

does not include proposed order that is narrowly tailored to seal only the sealable
material, and which lists in table format each document or portion thereof that is sought

25

to be sealed. See Civ. L. R. 79-5(d)(1)(B).

26
____

does not include a proposed order that conforms to this Court’s Standing Order in Civil

27
Cases, paragraph 11 (as set forth in Appendix A to this Order).
28

1

____

2

indicate that the submitting party is seeking to file the entire document under seal. See

3
4

does not include redacted version of the document that is sought to be filed under seal or

Civ. L. R. 79-5(d)(1)(C).
____

does not include an unredacted version of the document sought to be filed under seal

5

which indicates, by highlighting or other clear method, the portions of the document that

6

have been omitted from the redacted version. See Civ. L. R. 79-5(d)(1)(D).

7

____

no timely declaration from the Designating Party establishing that all of the designated

8

material is sealable, with regards to Docket Numbers 300 and 314. See Civ. L. R. 79-

9

5(e)(1) (declaration must be provided within four (4) days of filing of the motion).

10

____

supporting declarations submitted by Designating Party do not clearly indicate whether

11

they support the motion to seal in whole or in part, with regards to Docket Numbers 170,

12

205, 208. See Standing Order in Civil Cases, paragraph 11.

13
14
15
16

____

do not include an updated proposed order reflecting only those portions for which a
declaration establishing a basis for sealing has been submitted after the time has passed
for the Designating Party to file its declaration under Civ. L. R. 79-5(e)(1) that conforms
with this Court’s Standing Order in Civil Cases, paragraph 11, with regards to Docket
Numbers 281, 286, 300, and 314.

17
ORDER
18
19
20

Plaintiffs are directed to file supplemental documents to cure the defects identified above
no later than Wednesday, July 12, 2017. Failure to do so may result in an automatic denial of
the Motion to Seal.

21
22

IT IS SO ORDERED.

23
24

Dated: _______2017
July 7,

____________________________________
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

25
26
27
28
2

1

APPENDIX A

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

The Court’s Standing Order In Civil Cases, Paragraph 11, provides:
11.
Motions to Seal (Civ. L. R. 79-5). For documents submitted in connection with
administrative motions to seal, parties shall provide chambers copies of the unredacted
documents with proposed redacted material highlighted, as required Civil Local Rule 795(d)(1)(D), only. Do not submit chambers copies of the redacted versions of documents sought
to be sealed. Chambers courtesy copies of the unredacted documents must display the ECF
header at the top of each page.
When a designating party files a declaration in support of another party’s motion to seal,
as required by Civil Local Rule 79-5(e)(1), the designating party must indicate whether they join
the administrative motion to seal in whole or in part. If the designating party narrows the
submitting party’s sealing request(s), the designating party must specify the requests they
concede should not be granted, and submit both: (1) an unredacted version of the document
highlighting the narrowed proposed redacted material, and (2) a proposed order consistent with
the narrowed request(s).
Proposed orders on administrative motions to seal must conform to the following format:

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

Document or Portion of
Document Sought to be Sealed
Motion at page 2, lines 10–11

Evidence Offered in Support
of Sealing
Jones Declaration ¶ 1

Motion at page 5, lines 4–17

Jones Declaration ¶ 2

Order