Corcoran et al v. CVS Health Corporation

Filing 97

ORDER by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers denying 73 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting in part 76 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal.(fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/14/2016)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5
6
7

CHRISTOPHER CORCORAN, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

ORDER ON ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO
FILE UNDER SEAL

vs.
CVS HEALTH CORPORATION AND CVS
PHARMACY, INC.,

11
12

Case No.: 15-CV-3504 YGR

Re: Dkt. Nos. 73, 76

Defendants.
On January 15, 2016, Plaintiffs1 filed an administrative motion to file under seal portions of

13

their oppositions to Defendants’ motions to dismiss. (Dkt. No. 73.) On February 12, 2016,

14

Defendants similarly filed an administrative motion to file under seal portions of CVS Health’s

15

reply in support of its motion to dismiss, and exhibits submitted in connection therewith. (Dkt. No.

16

76.) Here, both administrative motions concern information designated as confidential by

17

Defendants. Defendants thus bear the burden to demonstrate why the information should be sealed.

18

Given the dispositive nature of Defendants’ motions, they must demonstrate “compelling reasons”

19

that overcome the public’s right to view public records and documents including judicial records.

20

Kamakana v. City of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006).

21

The Court finds Defendants met their burden with respect to only two sets of proposed

22

redactions: Exhibits 5 and 6 to the Second Moffatt Declaration (Dkt. Nos. 77-6, 77-7 as amended at

23

Dkt. Nos. 89-1, 89-2). The showing with respect to the other requests, by contrast, is not sufficient

24

under the applicable “compelling reasons” standard. Accordingly, Defendants’ motion with respect

25

to Exhibits 5 and 6 to the Second Moffatt Declaration is GRANTED. The administrative motions to

26

file under seal are otherwise DENIED.

27
28

1

All terms shall have the same meaning as defined in the Court’s Order on Defendants’
underlying motions to dismiss entered via separate order this same day.

1

This Order terminates Docket Numbers 73, 76.

2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

3
4
5

Date: March 14, 2016
_______________________________________
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

6
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

2