EVANS v. ARIZONA CARDINALS FOOTBALL CLUB, LLC, C 16-01030 WHA. (2017)
Court: District Court, N.D. California
Number: infdco20170728912
Visitors: 16
Filed: Jul. 26, 2017
Latest Update: Jul. 26, 2017
Summary: ORDER RE ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL WILLIAM ALSUP , District Judge . On June 27, plaintiffs filed an administrative motion to file under seal portions of and exhibits to their opposition brief to defendants' motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 243). Since the motion relied primarily on confidentiality designations pursuant to the protective order herein, Civil Local Rule 79-5(e) required any supporting declaration "establishing that all of the designated material is sealable
Summary: ORDER RE ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL WILLIAM ALSUP , District Judge . On June 27, plaintiffs filed an administrative motion to file under seal portions of and exhibits to their opposition brief to defendants' motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 243). Since the motion relied primarily on confidentiality designations pursuant to the protective order herein, Civil Local Rule 79-5(e) required any supporting declaration "establishing that all of the designated material is sealable"..
More
ORDER RE ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL
WILLIAM ALSUP, District Judge.
On June 27, plaintiffs filed an administrative motion to file under seal portions of and exhibits to their opposition brief to defendants' motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 243). Since the motion relied primarily on confidentiality designations pursuant to the protective order herein, Civil Local Rule 79-5(e) required any supporting declaration "establishing that all of the designated material is sealable" to be filed by July 3. On June 29, an order granted the parties' stipulated request to continue that deadline to July 14 (Dkt. No. 246). As of this order, however, no supporting declaration has been filed. Accordingly, the Court rules as follows:
DOCUMENT SOUGHT TO BE SEALED RULING
Opposition brief (pages 4-5, 13-15) No supporting declaration justifying sealing.
DENIED.
Exhibit 6 to Sinclair Declaration No supporting declaration justifying sealing.
DENIED.
Exhibit 7 to Sinclair Declaration No supporting declaration justifying sealing.
DENIED.
Exhibit 8 to Sinclair Declaration No supporting declaration justifying sealing.
DENIED.
Exhibit 9 to Sinclair Declaration No supporting declaration justifying sealing.
DENIED.
Exhibit 10 to Sinclair Declaration No supporting declaration justifying sealing.
DENIED.
Exhibit 11 to Sinclair Declaration No supporting declaration justifying sealing.
DENIED.
Exhibit 13 to Sinclair Declaration (pages Plaintiffs seek to seal these pages because
129, 308) "they contain information obtained from
documents or testimony that Plaintiffs have
marked confidential subject to the Protective
Order" (Dkt. No. 243-1 ¶ 4). Under Civil
Local Rule 79-5(d)(1)(A), "Reference to a
stipulation or protective order that allows a
party to designate certain documents as
confidential is not sufficient to establish that
a document, or portions thereof, are
sealable." DENIED.
Exhibit 14 to Sinclair Declaration (page 11) Plaintiffs seek to seal this page because "it
contains personal identifying information
that, while not required to be redacted under
the Federal Rules, the parties have
nonetheless agreed to redact" (Dkt. No. 243-1
¶ 5). Specifically, plaintiffs seek to redact
only line 20 of page 11, which reveals only
the home address of a physician deponent
(see Dkt. No. 243-20). Compelling reasons
warrant sealing of this information due to its
irrelevance to the merits and the high
visibility of this case. GRANTED.
Exhibit 16 to Sinclair Declaration No supporting declaration justifying sealing.
DENIED.
Plaintiff shall file public versions of the foregoing documents in full compliance with this order by AUGUST 2 AT NOON.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
