Coyote Valley Band of Pomo Indians of California, et al v. United States Department of Transportation et al

Filing 57

ORDER Deferring Ruling on 54 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on July 11, 2016. (jswlc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/11/2016)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7
8

ROUND VALLEY INDIAN TRIBES OF
CALIFORNIA, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

9
v.
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION, et al.,

12

Case No. 15-cv-04987-JSW
ORDER DEFERRING RULING ON
MOTION TO SEAL ADMINISTRATIVE
RECORD AND DIRECTING PARTIES
TO MEET AND CONFER

Defendants.

Re: Dkt. No. 54

13
14

Defendants California Department of Transportation and Malcolm Dougherty have filed an

15

administrative motion to seal large portions of the administrative record. Plaintiffs request that the

16

Court deny the motion without prejudice, because they have not yet had time to review each

17

document to determine if it is “sealable” within the meaning of Northern District Civil Local Rule

18

79-5. Plaintiffs put forth a proposal that would require the parties to meet and confer further on

19

this issue. Given the volume of documents at issue, and because the Court has only been provided

20

with the documents in electronic form, the Court finds good cause to adopt portions of Plaintiffs’

21

proposal.

22

Accordingly, the Court DEFERS ruling on the motion to seal. Pending a final order from

23

the Court, the documents shall remain lodged under seal and shall not be accessible to the public.

24

By no later than July 29, 2016, the parties shall meet and confer, as that term is defined by the

25

Northern District Civil Local Rules, in an effort to come to an agreement on whether any given

26

document should be filed under seal in its entirety or in part. Although Plaintiffs ask the Court to

27

order counsel for Defendants to provide the “instructions and methods described in paragraph 4 of

28

the” Lau Declaration, that request might intrude upon the attorney-work product privilege. The

1

Court would en
ncourage the parties to work togethe to resolve that issue w
e
w
er
without violat
ting any

2

pot
tential privilege issues.

3

However, the Court does find it appropriate to require t Caltrans Defendants to set forth
t
t
e
the

4

a particular bas for sealin each docu
p
sis
ng
ument and to identify any documents that were p of the
o
y
s
part

5

pub
blicly filed Administrative Record in the related case, Cente for Biolog
A
n
d
er
gical Diversity v.

6

Ca
alifornia Dep
partment of Transportati 12-CV-2
T
ion,
2172. Caltra shall pro
ans
ovide this inf
formation to
o

7

Pla
aintiffs by Ju 18, 2016.
uly
.

8

Once th parties ha met and conferred, th shall sub
he
ave
c
hey
bmit a joint s
supplementa motion to
al
sea In that motion, the pa
al.
m
arties should identify any documents that they ag should be sealed
d
y
s
gree

10

and the basis th
d
herefore. If the parties cannot agree on particula documents, they should create a
c
ar

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

9

cha similar to the chart in Defendants administra
art
o
n
s’
ative motion which sets forth the do
n,
ocument

12

num
mber, and ea party’s respective po
ach
r
osition as to why it should, or should not be seal
d
led.

13
14
15
16

IT IS SO ORDER
S
RED.
Da
ated: July 11, 2016
,
___
__________
___________
__________
________
JEF
FFREY S. W
WHITE
Un
nited States D
District Judg
ge

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2