Schulken et al v. Washington Mutual Bank, Henderson, NV et al

Filing 180

ORDER by Judge Lucy H. Koh granting 145 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; denying 151 Ex Parte Application; granting 160 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; denying 166 Motion for Leave to File (lhklc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/21/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

SAN JOSE DIVISION

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

JEFFREY SCHULKEN, et al.,

12
13

Plaintiffs,
v.

14

WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK,
HENDERSON, NV, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 09-CV-02708-LHK

ORDER REGARDING VARIOUS
ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS

Plaintiffs filed an administrative motion to seal various documents related to their class

18

certification motion. ECF No. 145. The motion to file under seal is unopposed. After reviewing

19

the motion, the supporting declaration and the documents, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion to

20

seal. The Court has already determined that many of the documents are properly sealable. See ECF

21

Nos. 94, 99. Moreover, those documents that Plaintiffs seek to file entirely under seal contain

22

information regarding Chase’s business policies, procedures and strategies with respect to the

23

4506-T program, as well as statistics regarding the program. Those documents that Plaintiffs seek

24

to file partially under seal also contain information regarding the same internal policies,

25

procedures, and business practices referenced above. The sealing request is narrowly tailored to

26

protect only the properly sealable information. Civil L.R. 79-5. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ motion to

27

seal Exhibits C, D, E, F, G, I, L, M, and O of the Woodrow Declaration is GRANTED. Plaintiffs’

28
1
Case No.: 09-CV-02708-LHK
ORDER REGARDING VARIOUS ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS

1

motion to partially seal Exhibits A, B, J, K, and N of the Woodrow Declaration, and to partially

2

seal portions of the motion for class certification is also GRANTED.

3

Plaintiffs have also filed an administrative motion to file under seal various documents

4

related to their reply in support of the class certification motion. ECF No. 160. Plaintiffs already

5

sought to seal Exhibits I, J, D, and F of the Woodrow Reply Declaration in the motion for class

6

certification. These documents are properly sealable for the reasons stated above. Exhibit G and

7

portions of Exhibit H are also properly sealable because they contain details regarding the business

8

policies, procedures, strategies and statistics associated with the 4506-T program. Accordingly, the

9

motion to seal Exhibits G, I, and J is GRANTED. The motion to partially seal exhibits D, F, and H

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

is also GRANTED.
Defendant has also filed a motion to permanently block the e-filed Exhibit 1 of the Collado

12

Declaration, which is a redacted copy of Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. ECF No. 151.

13

This motion is DENIED. Because the document is already redacted, and nothing that is sealable

14

has been revealed, there is no need to permanently block the ECF filing, or to seal the entire

15

document. If Defendant believes an unredacted copy of Exhibit 1 was erroneously filed, Defendant

16

shall identify the docket number for the Court by December 28, 2011, so the Court may reconsider

17

its ruling.

18

Finally, Plaintiff filed an administrative motion to file a response to Defendant’s statement

19

of recent decision. ECF No. 166. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-3(d)(2) the parties are permitted

20

to bring to the Court’s attention a relevant judicial opinion, “without argument.” Accordingly,

21

Plaintiffs’ request is DENIED.

22

IT IS SO ORDERED.

23

Dated: December 21, 2011

24

_________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

25
26
27
28
2
Case No.: 09-CV-02708-LHK
ORDER REGARDING VARIOUS ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS