Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

YE v. SEPHORA USA, INC., 14-cv-05237-EMC. (2016)

Court: District Court, N.D. California Number: infdco20160812960 Visitors: 6
Filed: Aug. 11, 2016
Latest Update: Aug. 11, 2016
Summary: ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFFS' ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL Docket No. 116. EDWARD M. CHEN , District Judge . Plaintiffs have moved to seal portions of their motion for class certification and certain exhibits attached to the Christensen declaration in support thereof. The information sought to be sealed has been designated confidential by Defendant. Defendant has submitted a declaration in which it continues to assert confidentiality for some
More

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFFS' ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL

Docket No. 116.

Plaintiffs have moved to seal portions of their motion for class certification and certain exhibits attached to the Christensen declaration in support thereof. The information sought to be sealed has been designated confidential by Defendant. Defendant has submitted a declaration in which it continues to assert confidentiality for some information but withdraws its designation for other information. The Court hereby rules as follows.

• Exhibits 5 and 6. The Court grants in part and denies in part the request to file under seal. Defendant claims that only a portion of these exhibits contains confidential information. Defendant has submitted a proposed redacted version, redacting only that information that it deems confidential. See Docket No. 119. Defendant has adequately established that the information so designated is confidential. • Exhibits 11 and 13. Defendant withdrew its confidentiality designation as to these exhibits. Accordingly, the motion to file these exhibits under seal is denied. • Exhibits 15-17. Defendant has adequately established that these documents contain confidential information, and therefore the motion to file these exhibits under seal is granted. • Exhibit 18. Defendant withdrew its confidentiality designation as to this exhibit.

Accordingly, the motion to file the exhibit under seal is denied.

• Exhibits 19 and 21. Defendant has adequately established that these documents contain confidential information, and therefore the motion to file these exhibits under seal is granted. • Exhibit 22. Defendant withdrew its confidentiality designation as to this exhibit. Accordingly, the motion to file the exhibit under seal is denied. • Exhibits 23-26 and 28-29. Defendant has adequately established that these documents contain confidential information, and therefore the motion to file these exhibits under seal is granted. • Portions of the motion for class certification. The Court grants in part and denies in part the motion to file certain portions of the motion for class certification under seal. The motion is denied to the extent Defendant has withdrawn its confidentiality designations. The motion is granted to the extent the Court has found any of the above exhibits to contain confidential information.

Plaintiffs are ordered to take the following action: (1) publicly file all exhibits for which Defendant no longer claims confidentiality; (2) publicly file the proposed redacted versions of Exhibit 5 and 6 (see Docket No. 119); and (3) publicly file a new version of the motion for class certification, making only those redactions consistent with the rulings in this order. Plaintiffs shall make these filings within a week of the date of this order.

This order disposes of Docket No. 116.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer