Jacobson v. Persolve, LLC et al

Filing 103

ORDER by Judge Lucy H. Koh denying 97 Motion ; denying 98 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal (lhklc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/23/2015)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
SAN JOSE DIVISION

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

SANDRA LEE JACOBSON,
Plaintiff,

13
14
15
16

Case No. 14-cv-00735-LHK
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM
NONDISPOSITIVE PRETRIAL ORDER
OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE

v.
PERSOLVE, LLC, et al.,
Defendants.

Re: Dkt. No. 97

17
18

Having reviewed Plaintiff’s motion, ECF No. 97, Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd’s

19

April 1, 2015 order, ECF No. 94, and the parties’ submissions with respect to Judge Lloyd’s order,

20

ECF No. 85, the Court concludes that Judge Lloyd’s decision granting in part and denying

21

Plaintiff’s motion to compel was neither “clearly erroneous” nor “contrary to law.” Fed. R. Civ. P.

22

72(a). Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for Relief from Nondispositive Pretrial

23

Order of Magistrate Judge under Rule 72(a).

24

The Court DENIES without prejudice Plaintiff’s administrative motion to file under seal,

25

ECF No. 98. Plaintiff has failed to show “good cause” to seal the information contained in Exhibit

26

D. See Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (holding that

27
28

1
Case No.14-cv-00735-LHK
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM NONDISPOSITIVE PRETRIAL ORDER OF
MAGISTRATE JUDGE

1

“go cause” standard applies to sealin requests a
ood
s
ng
attached to n
nondispositiv motions). The “good
ve

2

cau
use” standard requires a “particulariz showing that “spec
d
zed
g”
cific prejudic or harm w result” if
ce
will
f

3

the information is disclosed Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206,
e
n
d.
x
s
7
s

4

121
10–11 (9th Cir. 2002) (in
C
nternal quota
ation marks omitted); se Fed. R. Ci P. 26(c). “Broad
ee
iv.

5

alle
egations of harm, unsubs
h
stantiated by specific ex
y
xamples of ar
rticulated reasoning” will not

6

suf
ffice. Beckman Indus., In v. Int’l In Co., 966 F
nc.
ns.
F.2d 470, 47 (9th Cir. 1992).
76

7

Plaintif shall file an renewed motion to se within 7 days of this order.
ff
ny
eal

8

IT IS SO ORD
DERED.

9

Da
ated: April 23 2015
3,

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

___
__________
___________
__________
________
LU
UCY H. KOH
H
Un
nited States D
District Judg
ge

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2
Cas No.14-cv-00
se
0735-LHK
OR
RDER DENYIN PLAINTIF
NG
FF’S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM NONDISPOSITIVE PRETRIAL O
N
F
E
ORDER OF
MA
AGISTRATE JUDGE