Slovin v. Sunrun, Inc. et al

Filing 105

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley denying 99 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; denying 101 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal. (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/13/2017)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 LYNN SLOVIN, ET AL., Plaintiffs, 8 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 Case No.15-cv-05340-YGR (JSC) ORDER RE: ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO SEAL v. SUNRUN, INC., et al., Re: Dkt. Nos. 99 & 101 Defendants. 12 13 Now pending before the Court are Administrative Motions to Seal filed in connection with 14 the parties’ June 1, 2017 Joint Discovery Letter Brief. (Dkt. Nos. 99 & 101.) Under Local Rule 15 79-5(a) sealing is appropriate only where the requesting party “establishes that the document, or 16 portions thereof is privileged or protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection 17 under the law.” N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 79–5(a). A party must “narrowly tailor” its request to 18 sealable material only. Id. 19 Plaintiffs seek sealing of Exhibits C and E to the letter brief because Defendants 20 designated these documents as confidential pursuant to the parties’ protective order. Under Civil 21 Local Rule 79-5(e)(1) Defendants were therefore required within “4 days of the filing of the 22 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal... [to file] a declaration as required by subsection 79- 23 5(d)(1)(A) establishing that all of the designated material is sealable.” Defendants have failed to 24 do so. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ Administrative Motion to Seal is DENIED. (Dkt. No. 99.) 25 Defendants seek sealing of portions of the Declaration of Lauri A. Mazzuchetti and 26 Exhibits 2, 3, and 4 thereto. Defendants contend that portions of the Mazzuchetti Declaration and 27 Exhibits 2-3 contain proprietary business and calling records of Defendants “disclosure of which 28 might place Defendants at a disadvantage with respect to their existing and potential competitors, 1 who would gain access to marketing and lead information contained therein.” (Dtk. No. 101 at ¶ 2 3; Dkt. No. 1-101-1 at 2:24.) Defendants also seek sealing of Exhibit 4 which is Plaintiff Samuel 3 Katz’s Second Supplemental Response to Defendant Sunrun Inc.’s First Set of Interrogatories. 4 (Dkt. No. 101-4.) Defendants’ motion to seal is neither narrowly tailored nor does it describe with 5 sufficient particularity the confidential business information which is properly sealable. The Court 6 agrees that Exhibit 2, which appears to be a screenshot of Defendants’ database, contains 7 proprietary business information; however, the same cannot be said for the Mazzuchetti 8 Declaration or Exhibit 3 to the deposition testimony of Matthew James Snider. Likewise, 9 although Defendants contend that sealing of Exhibit 4 is appropriate because it contains Plaintiff’s phone number, the exhibit is 13 pages long and contains lots of information that is not 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 confidential. Accordingly, Defendants’ motion to seal is DENIED without prejudice to renewal 12 on a proper showing as to the Mazzuchetti Declaration, Exhibit 3, and Exhibit 4. The motion is 13 granted as to Exhibit 2. 14 This Order disposes of Docket Nos. 99 and 101. 15 16 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: June 13, 2017 18 19 JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY United States Magistrate Judge 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?