Kowalsky v. Hewlett-Packard Company

Filing 78

Order by Hon. Lucy H. Koh denying without prejudice 76 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal. (lhklc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/18/2012)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 SAN JOSE DIVISION 7 8 9 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 11 12 13 CHAIM KOWALSKY, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. HEWLETT-PACKARD CO. and DOES 1 Through 100, inclusive, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: 10-CV-02176-LHK ORDER DENYING MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL 14 On January 6, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion, pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5(b), for leave 15 to file under seal certain exhibits attached to the Declaration of Joel Elkins in Support of Plaintiff’s 16 Motion for Class Certification. ECF No. 76. Plaintiff states that he intends to file “portions of the 17 Memorandum, and certain of the Exhibits to the Declaration, under seal, as they incorporate or 18 otherwise cite to documents produced by Defendant to Plaintiff in this action which Defendant has 19 designated as confidential” pursuant to the parties’ proposed protective order. Specifically, 20 Plaintiff seeks to file Exhibits B-C, and I-X under seal, in their entirety, on the ground that these 21 exhibits have been designated “restricted information” or “restricted outside counsel only 22 information” pursuant to the parties’ proposed protective order. 23 Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5(d), when a party seeks to file a document designated 24 confidential by another party, the designating party must, within 7 days, “file with the Court and 25 serve a declaration establishing that the designated information is sealable, and must lodge and 26 serve a narrowly tailored proposed sealing order, or must withdraw the designation of 27 confidentiality.” More than 7 days have passed since Plaintiff filed his motion, and HP has not 28 filed any declaration regarding Plaintiff’s motion to file under seal. 1 Case No.: 10-CV-02176-LHK ORDER DENYING MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL 1 Moreover, the Court has reviewed the exhibits proposed to be sealed and finds that some of 2 these are not sealable. Specifically, Exhibit T is product packaging and does not bear any 3 confidentiality designation. Exhibits U and V bear the designation “restricted,” but they appear to 4 be advertisements that were available to the public. HP must explain why these exhibits should be 5 sealed, or withdraw the confidentiality designations. 6 Finally, the Court notes that Plaintiff has not indicated what portions of the memorandum 7 he intends to file under seal. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5(c)(3), Plaintiff was required to 8 identify “by notations or highlighting” the portions of the memorandum he intended to file under 9 seal. Pursuant to the Court’s standing order of December 1, 2011, Plaintiff was also required to United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 11 publicly e-file a proposed redacted version of the memorandum. The Court ORDERS that the following take place by 5:00 p.m. on January 25, 2012: 12 (1) Plaintiff shall meet and confer with Defendant and e-file a public proposed, narrowly tailored, 13 redacted version of the memorandum; and (2) Defendant shall file its declaration pursuant to Civil 14 Local Rule 79-5(d). Furthermore, the parties shall consult and comply with Civil Local Rule 79-5, 15 General Order 62, and the Court’s December 1, 2011 standing order in all future administrative 16 motions to file under seal. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to file under seal is DENIED without 17 prejudice. 18 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 Dated: January 18, 2012 _________________________________ LUCY H. KOH United States District Judge 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 Case No.: 10-CV-02176-LHK ORDER DENYING MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL

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?