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)

Download PDF
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

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?