Corcoran et al v. CVS Health Corporation

Northern District of California, cand-4:2015-cv-03504

ORDER DIRECTING FURTHER SUBMISSION IN SUPPORT OF ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL re 314 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal re: Reply in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment filed by CVS Pharmacy, Inc., 300 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal re: Opposition to Plaintiffs' Amended Motion for Class Certification filed by CVS Pharmacy, Inc., 286 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal re: Motion to Exclude the Opinion Testimony of Dr. Joel Hay filed by CVS Pharmacy, Inc., 281 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal filed by CVS Pharmacy, Inc. Supplemental documents filed by Wednesday, July 12, 2017. Signed by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers on 7/7/17.

Interested in this case?

Current View

Full Text

1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 IN AND FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 4 5 CHRISTOPHER CORCORAN, ET AL.,) Case No. 15-cv-3504 YGR) 6 Plaintiffs,) ORDER DIRECTING FURTHER SUBMISSION) IN SUPPORT OF ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION 7 v.) TO SEAL) 8 CVS HEALTH, ET AL.,) Dkt. Nos. 281, 286, 300, 314) 9 Defendants.)) 10 Defendants have filed Administrative Motions to File Under Seal at Docket Numbers 11 281, 286, 300, and 314. 12 The motions do not comply with the requirements of Civil Local Rule 79-5 and/or this 13 Court's Standing Order In Civil Cases, paragraph 11, with respect to portions related to 14 plaintiffs' personal information as follows: 15 ____ seeks to remove a document from the record without making a motion to file under seal 16 an unredacted version of the document; 17 ____ does not include a declaration establishing that the documents sought to be filed under 18 seal, or portions thereof, are sealable under the standard appropriate to the underlying 19 motion. Reference to a stipulation or protective order that allows a party to designate 20 certain documents as confidential is not sufficient to establish that documents, or portions 21 thereof, are sealable. See Civ. L. R. 79-5(d)(1)(A); Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass'n, 565 22 F.3d 1106, 1115-16 (9th Cir. 2009); Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir.2006). 23 ____ does not include proposed order that is narrowly tailored to seal only the sealable 24 material, and which lists in table format each document or portion thereof that is sought 25 to be sealed. See Civ. L. R. 79-5(d)(1)(B). 26 ____ does not include a proposed order that conforms to this Court's Standing Order in Civil 27 Cases, paragraph 11 (as set forth in Appendix A to this Order). 28 1 ____ does not include redacted version of the document that is sought to be filed under seal or 2 indicate that the submitting party is seeking to file the entire document under seal. See 3 Civ. L. R. 79-5(d)(1)(C). 4 ____ does not include an unredacted version of the document sought to be filed under seal 5 which indicates, by highlighting or other clear method, the portions of the document that 6 have been omitted from the redacted version. See Civ. L. R. 79-5(d)(1)(D). 7 ____ no timely declaration from the Designating Party establishing that all of the designated 8 material is sealable, with regards to Docket Numbers 300 and 314. See Civ. L. R. 79- 9 5(e)(1) (declaration must be provided within four (4) days of filing of the motion). 10 ____ supporting declarations submitted by Designating Party do not clearly indicate whether 11 they support the motion to seal in whole or in part, with regards to Docket Numbers 170, 12 205, 208. See Standing Order in Civil Cases, paragraph 11. ____ do not include an updated proposed order reflecting only those portions for which a 13 declaration establishing a basis for sealing has been submitted after the time has passed 14 for the Designating Party to file its declaration under Civ. L. R. 79-5(e)(1) that conforms 15 with this Court's Standing Order in Civil Cases, paragraph 11, with regards to Docket 16 Numbers 281, 286, 300, and 314. 17 ORDER 18 Plaintiffs are directed to file supplemental documents to cure the defects identified above 19 no later than Wednesday, July 12, 2017. Failure to do so may result in an automatic denial of 20 the Motion to Seal. 21 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 24 Dated: _______ July 7, 2017 ____________________________________ YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS 25 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 26 27 28 2 1 APPENDIX A 2 The Court's Standing Order In Civil Cases, Paragraph 11, provides: 3 11. Motions to Seal (Civ. L. R. 79-5). For documents submitted in connection with 4 administrative motions to seal, parties shall provide chambers copies of the unredacted 5 documents with proposed redacted material highlighted, as required Civil Local Rule 79- 5(d)(1)(D), only. Do not submit chambers copies of the redacted versions of documents sought 6 to be sealed. Chambers courtesy copies of the unredacted documents must display the ECF header at the top of each page. 7 When a designating party files a declaration in support of another party's motion to seal, 8 as required by Civil Local Rule 79-5(e)(1), the designating party must indicate whether they join 9 the administrative motion to seal in whole or in part. If the designating party narrows the submitting party's sealing request(s), the designating party must specify the requests they 10 concede should not be granted, and submit both: (1) an unredacted version of the document highlighting the narrowed proposed redacted material, and (2) a proposed order consistent with 11 the narrowed request(s). 12 Proposed orders on administrative motions to seal must conform to the following format: 13 Document or Portion of Evidence Offered in Support Order 14 Document Sought to be Sealed of Sealing Motion at page 2, lines 10–11 Jones Declaration ¶ 1 15 16 Motion at page 5, lines 4–17 Jones Declaration ¶ 2 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28