In re: High-Tech Employee Antitrust Litigation

Filing 1047

ORDER by Judge Lucy H. Koh granting in part and denying in part #991 Administrative Motion to Unseal (lhklc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/30/2015)

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

IN RE HIGH-TECH EMPLOYEE
ANTITRUST LITIGATION

Master Docket No. 11-CV-2509-LHK

THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO:

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFFS’
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO UNSEAL

13
14
15
16

ALL ACTIONS

On September 19, 2014, Plaintiffs filed an Administrative Motion to Unseal “all papers

17

filed in connection with Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel” (ECF No. 789-2). ECF No. 991. On

18

September 23, 2014, Defendants opposed. ECF No. 994.

19

After considering the parties’ submissions, the Court on November 19, 2014, ordered

20

Defendants to file a declaration in support of sealing any papers filed in connection with Plaintiffs’

21

Motion to Compel, along with any proposed redactions, pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5. ECF

22

No. 1024. Defendants did so on December 3, 2014. ECF No. 1029. In their declaration,

23

Defendants sought to seal six docket entries: ECF Nos. 789-2, 789-3, 878-1, 878-2, 878-3, 991-1.

24

The Court addresses each under the “good cause” standard appropriate for sealing requests

25

attached to nondispositive motions, such as Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel. Kamakana v. City &

26

Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179-80 (9th Cir. 2006). The “good cause” standard requires a

27

“particularized showing” that “specific prejudice or harm will result” if the information is

28
Master Docket No. 11-CV-02509-LHK
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFFS’ ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO
UNSEAL

1

disclosed. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir.

2

2002) (internal quotation marks omitted); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c).

3
4

With this standard in mind, the Court rules on Plaintiffs’ Administrative Motion to Unseal

6

as follows:
Motion ECF No.
Document (as Highlighted)
991
789-2
Plaintiffs’ Notice of Motion and Motion to
Compel

7

991

789-3

Declaration of Kelly M. Dermody

991

878-1

Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiffs’
Motion to Compel

991

878-2

Declaration of Cody S. Harris

991

878-3

Exhibit A to Declaration of Cody S. Harris:
In re Terazosin Reply Memorandum

991

991-1

Plaintiffs’ Reply in Support of Motion to
Compel

5

8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16

Ruling
DENIED. The Court accepts
Defendants’ proposed
redactions.
GRANTED as to Exhibit A
(the Terazosin order) and the
reference thereto at 1:19-20
(¶ 6) because Exhibit A is a
publicly available document.
DENIED otherwise. The
Court accepts Defendants’
other proposed redactions.
DENIED. The Court accepts
Defendants’ proposed
redactions.
GRANTED because the
reference at 1:8-9 (¶ 3) is to a
publicly available document.
GRANTED because this
document is publicly
available.
DENIED. The Court accepts
Defendants’ proposed
redactions.

17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.

19
20
21

Dated: January 30, 2015

_________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Master Docket No. 11-CV-02509-LHK
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFFS’ ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO
UNSEAL