B & R SUPERMARKET, INC. v. VISA, INC., C 16-01150 WHA. (2017)
Court: District Court, N.D. California
Number: infdco20170410c23
Visitors: 8
Filed: Apr. 07, 2017
Latest Update: Apr. 07, 2017
Summary: ORDER RE ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO FILE UNDER SEAL IN CONNECTION WITH MOTION TO TRANSFER WILLIAM ALSUP , District Judge . In connection with defendants' motion to transfer (Dkt. No. 437), both sides have filed administrative motions to file under seal (Dkt. Nos. 436, 445, 449, 452). The motions seek to keep under seal two pleadings from the multidistrict litigation in the Eastern District of New York, as well as references to said pleadings in other documents, on the basis that the pleading
Summary: ORDER RE ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO FILE UNDER SEAL IN CONNECTION WITH MOTION TO TRANSFER WILLIAM ALSUP , District Judge . In connection with defendants' motion to transfer (Dkt. No. 437), both sides have filed administrative motions to file under seal (Dkt. Nos. 436, 445, 449, 452). The motions seek to keep under seal two pleadings from the multidistrict litigation in the Eastern District of New York, as well as references to said pleadings in other documents, on the basis that the pleadings..
More
ORDER RE ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO FILE UNDER SEAL IN CONNECTION WITH MOTION TO TRANSFER
WILLIAM ALSUP, District Judge.
In connection with defendants' motion to transfer (Dkt. No. 437), both sides have filed administrative motions to file under seal (Dkt. Nos. 436, 445, 449, 452). The motions seek to keep under seal two pleadings from the multidistrict litigation in the Eastern District of New York, as well as references to said pleadings in other documents, on the basis that the pleadings contain purportedly confidential information. Declarations submitted in support of sealing indicated that (1) both pleadings in question remain under seal in the MDL, and (2) public versions of the pleadings with more tailored redactions would be filed around March 31.
The parties have offered no further explanation as to why the two MDL pleadings and their contents deserve to be kept under seal here. The Court's own review of the parties' redactions revealed nothing that would justify sealing — particularly wholesale sealing of the type sought here — under the standards set forth in Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2006), which remain the controlling standards in this litigation.
Nonetheless, out of respect for the Eastern District of New York — and with the expectation that the parties would soon file revised versions of the materials sought to be kept under seal with more tailored redactions, if any — the Court stayed its hand as to the motions. As of this order, however, no public versions have been filed in this action. All movants responsible for these administrative motions shall SHOW CAUSE by APRIL 13 AT NOON why anything in connection with defendants' motion to transfer should be kept under seal. To the extent that any movant continues to request sealing under the standards set forth in Kamakana, that movant shall also revise both the proposed order on their sealing motion and the redacted versions of their materials accordingly, and file all revised documents by APRIL 13 AT NOON.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
