Campanelli v. Image First Uniform Rental Service, Inc. et al
Filing
102
ORDER RE JOINT ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION 101 by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton. (pjhlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/20/2018)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
KYLE L. CAMPANELLI,
9
10
11
Case No. 15-cv-04456-PJH
Plaintiff,
8
v.
ORDER RE JOINT ADMINISTRATIVE
MOTION
IMAGE FIRST HEALTHCARE
LAUNDRY SPECIALISTS, INC., et al.,
Re: Dkt. No. 101
United States District Court
Northern District of California
Defendants.
12
13
14
On February 16, 2018, the court denied in part plaintiff’s motion for partial
15
summary judgment. Dkt. 98. The same order terminated the motion with respect to the
16
unresolved issues without prejudice to plaintiff re-noticing the motion once the current
17
stay is lifted. In support of his motion for summary judgment, plaintiff lodged five exhibits
18
under seal. Rather than filing an administrative motion to seal, plaintiff relied on
19
Magistrate Judge Kim’s order sealing the exhibits in conjunction with a discovery dispute.
20
See Dkt. 74.
21
In its order denying summary judgment, the court neither cited nor relied on those
22
exhibits. Dkt. 98 n. 5. The court held that because no motion to seal had been filed, the
23
exhibits must either be made part of the public record or withdrawn. Id. The parties have
24
now filed a joint administrative motion regarding the proper resolution of that order.
25
Defendants argue that the exhibits should be withdrawn because they were not relied
26
upon by the court and because they contain defendants’ confidential information. Plaintiff
27
argues that the exhibits should be made part of the summary judgment record and
28
defendants should file an administrative motion to seal the documents if the defendants
1
2
wish the documents to remain sealed.
The court hereby ORDERS plaintiff to withdraw the five exhibits lodged under seal
3
filed in support of plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment. See Dkt. 92. Either
4
party may seek to file those exhibits under seal—with the appropriate administrative
5
motion—when plaintiff re-notices the unresolved portion of his summary judgment motion
6
after the present stay is lifted.
7
The parties are reminded that the Ninth Circuit applies the “compelling reasons”
standard to sealed documents filed in support of a motion for summary judgment. Ctr. for
9
Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1098 (9th Cir. 2016). That standard is
10
more strenuous than the “good cause” standard applied to documents filed in support of
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
8
non-dispositive motions such as discovery disputes. Id. at 1097.
12
13
14
15
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 20, 2018
__________________________________
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
United States District Judge
16
17
18
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?