General Retirement System of the City of Detroit v. The Wells Fargo Mortgage Backed Securities 2006-AR18 Trust et al

Filing 435

ORDER by Judge Lucy H. Koh granting 400 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting in part and denying in part 405 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting in part and denying in part 422 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting in part and denying in part 430 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal. (lhklc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/10/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

8

SAN JOSE DIVISION

11

)
)
)
)
)
)

12
13

IN RE WELLS FARGO MORTGAGEBACKED CERTIFICATES LITIGATION

14
15
16
17

Case No.: 09-CV-01376-LHK
ORDER REGARDING REQUESTS TO
SEAL, DOCKET NUMBERS 400, 405,
422, 430

Regarding various administrative requests to seal information pending in this matter, the
Court holds as follows.
Regarding Docket Number 400: Defendants requested sealing of Exhibits 1, 2 and 3 to the

18

Fry Declaration submitted in support of the Wells Fargo Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the

19

Pleadings (Dkt. No. 403). Defendants also sought sealing of references to this information in the

20

Motion (Dkt. No. 402). The Underwriter Defendants have submitted a declaration indicating that

21

these exhibits contain confidential transaction records. These documents are therefore sealable in

22

their entirety, and the request to seal Exhibits 1, 2 and 3 to the Fry Declaration (Dkt. No. 403) and

23

to seal unredacted references to this information in Docket Number 402 is hereby GRANTED.

24

Regarding Docket Number 405: Defendants requested sealing of information designated

25

confidential by the Plaintiffs. Specifically, Defendants requested sealing of Exhibits 6, 7, 8, 9, 14,

26

16, 18, 20, and 49 to the Rutten Declaration (Dkt. No. 407) submitted in support of Defendants’

27

Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification, as well as references to this information

28
1
Case No.: 09-CV-01376-LHK
ORDER REGARDING REQUESTS TO SEAL

1

within Defendants’ Opposition. Plaintiffs never submitted a follow-up declaration stating why

2

these documents are properly sealable, as required by Civil Local Rule 79-5(d). This Court issued

3

an Order directing the Plaintiffs to file any such declaration by May 31, 2011 if they wished to

4

maintain confidentiality over this information, but no declaration was filed. See Dkt. No. 421.

5

Accordingly, the request to seal Exhibits 6, 7, 8, 9, 14, 16, 18, 20, and 49 to the Rutten Declaration

6

(Dkt. No. 407), and references to this information in the Opposition (Dkt. No. 406) is DENIED.

7

These Exhibits shall be publicly filed and any references to these exhibits shall not be redacted

8

from the public version of Defendants’ Opposition.

9

Defendants also sought sealing of documents designated confidential by third parties,

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

including portions of Exhibits 2 and all of Exhibit 30 to the Rutten Declaration (Dkt. No. 407).

11

The request to seal these documents is GRANTED.

12

Finally, Defendants sought sealing of portions of Exhibits 1 and 2 of the Rutten Declaration

13

(Dkt. No. 407), and references to this information in the Opposition (Dkt. No. 406). Defendants

14

submitted declarations indicating that these exhibits contain confidential information relating to

15

Wells Fargo’s business practices, and private customer information. Accordingly, these documents

16

are properly sealable, and Defendants’ request to seal Exhibits 1 and 2 of the Rutten Declaration

17

(Dkt. No. 407) and to redact references to this information in the Opposition (Dkt. No. 406) is

18

hereby GRANTED.

19

Regarding Docket Number 422: Plaintiffs requested sealing of information produced by

20

Defendants and referenced in Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the

21

Pleadings (Dkt. No. 423). The Underwriter Defendants filed a declaration stating that Exhibit 3 to

22

the DeLange Declaration (Dkt. No. 423) is sealable because it contains confidential trading data at

23

page 110, lines 18-25. Accordingly, only this portion of Ex. 3 to the DeLange Declaration (Dkt.

24

No. 423) may be sealed. Plaintiffs shall prepare a redacted public version removing only those

25

lines of Exhibit 3 and any references to that information in their opposition. In addition, Plaintiffs

26

requested permission to seal information for which Defendants sought sealing in Docket Number

27

400. Because the Court finds that information sealable, Plaintiffs’ request to redact such

28

information from Docket Number 423 is GRANTED.
2
Case No.: 09-CV-01376-LHK
ORDER REGARDING REQUESTS TO SEAL

1

Regarding Docket Number 430: Plaintiffs requested sealing of information produced by

2

Defendants. Defendants filed declarations indicating that the only sealable information is in Ex. 25

3

to the DeLange Declaration, page 110, lines 18-25. Plaintiffs shall file a redacted public version of

4

Exhibit 25 redacting only these lines, and any reference to these lines from Plaintiff’s Reply Brief

5

(Dkt. No. 431). Because Defendants have indicated that all other documents and information

6

submitted for sealing in Docket Number 430 do not contain confidential information, Plaintiffs’

7

request to seal that information is DENIED.

8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9

Dated: June 10, 2011

_________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
Case No.: 09-CV-01376-LHK
ORDER REGARDING REQUESTS TO SEAL