Theodore Broomfield, et al v. Craft Brew Alliance, Inc. et al

Filing 86

ORDER DENYING #84 DEFENDANT'S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 8/16/2018.(blflc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/16/2018)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5

SAN JOSE DIVISION

6
7

THEODORE BROOMFIELD, ET AL.,

8

Plaintiffs,
ORDER DENYING ADMINISTRATIVE
MOTION TO SEAL

v.

9
10

CRAFT BREW ALLIANCE, INC., et al.,

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 17-cv-01027-BLF

Defendants.

[Re: ECF 84]

12
Before the Court is Defendant Craft Brew Alliance, Inc.’s (“Defendant”) Administrative

13
14

Motion to File Under Seal portions of its Opposition/Response to Plaintiff’s Motion to Certify

15

Class (ECF 85). See ECF 84. Defendant seeks to file under seal dozens of paragraphs and figures

16

included in a supporting expert report and rebuttal expert report, as well as several paragraphs in a

17

supporting declaration. In its Motion, Defendant states that it requests to seal portions of the

18

relevant documents “because they contain documents or information designated by CBA as

19

‘CONFIDENTIAL’ under the Protective Order” (ECF 53) in place in this case. Mot. at 2. In its

20

Declaration in support of its Motion, Defendant argues that it seeks to place these documents under

21

seal “because they include information designated by [Defendant] as ‘confidential’ under the

22

Protective Order,” and because “the material has been designated as proprietary and confidential by

23

CBA.” Decl. of Tammy B. Webb, ECF 84-1, ¶¶ 3–4. Defendant makes no other arguments in support

24

of its motion, and makes no specific arguments as to each portion of the documents sought to be

25

sealed.

26

In order to file documents under seal, parties must comply with Civ. L.R. 79-5. That rule

27

states that the movant must file a declaration “establishing that the document sought to be filed under

28

seal, or portions thereof, are sealable.” Id. 79-5(d)(1)(A). Moreover, Rule 79-5 requires movants to

1

comply with Civ. L.R. 7-11, which states that an administrative motion must “set forth

2

specifically . . . the reasons supporting the motion.” Id. 7-11(a). Under these rules, “[r]eference to

3

a . . . protective order that allows a party to designate certain documents as confidential is not

4

sufficient to establish that a document, or portions thereof are sealable.” Id. 79-5(d)(1)(A). Instead,

5

the movant must set forth sufficient reasons why filing the documents or portions thereof is allowable

6

under governing law. Finally, the movant must submit a proposed order “which lists in table format

7

each document or portion thereof that is sought to be sealed.” Id. 79-5(d)(1)(B).

8

Defendant has failed to comply with numerous requirements set forth in these rules, the most
important of which being that it provide specific reasons why each portion of the documents it wishes

10

to seal is in fact sealable. For this reason, the Court DENIES Defendant’s administrative motion to file

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

9

under seal without prejudice. Defendant is ORDERED to file unredacted versions of the relevant

12

documents by August 23, 2018, or, in the alternative, to file a renewed administrative motion to seal in

13

compliance with the local rules of this Court by August 23, 2018. If Defendant chooses to file another

14

administrative motion to seal, it need not provide chambers copies to the Court.

15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.

17
18
19
20

Dated: August 16, 2018
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2