Flynn et al v. FCA U.S., LLC et al

Filing 23

INTERIM ORDER REGARDING 7 and 20 ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO SEAL. Signed by Magistrate Judge Susan van Keulen on 5/18/2017. (ofr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/18/2017)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

BRIAN FLYNN, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

Case No.17-mc-80051-SVK

v.
FCA U.S., LLC, et al.,
Defendants.

INTERIM ORDER REGARDING
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO
SEAL
Re: Dkt. Nos. 7, 20

On April 24, 2017, Movant Brian Flynn, et al. (“Flynn”) filed a motion to compel

13

document production from third party Cisco Systems, Inc. (“Cisco”) in relation to an action

14

pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, Case No. 15-cv-

15

855. ECF 1 (the “Motion to Compel”). After Flynn filed his Motion to Compel, FCA U.S., LLC

16

(“FCA”) informed Flynn that his Motion to Compel referenced documents that FCA produced as

17

confidential in the underlying action, necessitating the Motion to Compel to be filed under seal.

18

ECF 6-1 at 3. On April 27, 2017, FCA filed a Motion to Strike and Seal the Motion to Compel

19

(ECF 6) and Flynn moved to seal the entire Motion to Compel (ECF 7). The Court provisionally

20

placed the Motion to Compel under seal and FCA subsequently withdrew its Motion to Strike and

21

Seal. ECF 15. On May 11, 2017, Flynn filed a reply to Cisco’s Opposition to Flynn’s Motion to

22

Compel (the “Reply”) and moved to file the entire Reply under seal. ECF 20. The Court finds

23

that neither Flynn nor FCA have complied with the Northern District of California Civil Local

24

Rules and instructs compliance as indicated below.

25

In the Northern District of California, when a party seeks to file a document or portions

26

thereof under seal, the party (the “Submitting Party”) must submit a redacted version of the

27

document with a declaration explaining why the document is sealable. Civil L.R. 79-5(d). The

28

Submitting Party must also submit a proposed order that is “narrowly tailored to seal only the

1

sealable material, and which lists in table format each document or portion thereof that is sought to

2

be sealed.” Civil L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(B).
If the sole reason for sealing is that the document or information has been designated as

3
4

confidential pursuant to a protective order, stating as much is “not sufficient to establish that a

5

document, or portions thereof, are sealable.” Civil L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(A). If the document was

6

designated as confidential by a party other than the Submitting Party, the Submitting Party’s

7

declaration must “identify the document or portions thereof which contain the designated

8

confidential material and identify the party that has designated the material as confidential (‘the

9

Designating Party’).” Civil L.R. 79-5(e). Within four days of the filing of the Administrative
Motion to File Under Seal, the “Designating Party must file a declaration as required by

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

subsection 79-5(d)(1)(A) establishing that all of the designated material is sealable.” Civil L.R.

12

79-5(e)(1).

13

Here, neither the Submitting Party (Flynn) nor the Designating Party (FCA) has complied

14

with the local rules. Flynn has not submitted requests that are narrowly tailored, but rather seeks

15

to seal the entirety of both the Motion to Compel and his Reply. The declaration submitted in

16

support of Flynn’s motion to seal his Motion to Compel indicates portions of the Motion to

17

Compel that are confidential with some specificity (e.g., footnote 1 and “the top of page 3”), but

18

does not provide a basis for sealing the entire Motion to Compel. FCA did not provide a

19

declaration establishing that any material in the Motion to Compel is sealable, and instead only

20

generally references the protective order in place in the underlying action and FCA’s

21

confidentiality designations. ECF 6-1 at 3.1 FCA did not submit a declaration to support sealing

22

Flynn’s Reply.
Therefore, the Court instructs Flynn to resubmit a redacted version and unredacted version

23
24

of the Motion to Compel and Reply, pursuant to Local Rule 79-5(d), including an unredacted

25

version which indicates the portions sought to be filed under seal “by highlighting or other clear

26

method.” Civil L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(D).

27
28

1

The Court treats the declaration submitted with FCA’s Motion to Strike and Seal as the
declaration, albeit deficient, required by Local Rule 79-5(e)(1).
2

1
2
3

The Court instructs FCA to submit a declaration indicating, with particularity, the bases for
sealing portions of Flynn’s Motion to Compel and Flynn’s Reply. Civil L.R. 79-5(e)(1).
Finally, the Court instructs Flynn and FCA to meet and confer regarding the above-

4

referenced redactions such that both parties’ submissions can be made on the same day, which

5

shall be no later than May 26, 2017.

6
7

SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 18, 2017

8
9
SUSAN VAN KEULEN
United States Magistrate Judge

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3