Corcoran et al v. CVS Health Corporation

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

ORDER RECONSIDERING DECEMBER 9 DISCOVERY ORDER. Signed by Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley on 12/13/2016.

Interested in this case?

Current View

Full Text

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 CHRISTOPHER CORCORAN, et al., Case No.15-cv-03504-YGR (JSC) Plaintiffs, 8 ORDER RECONSIDERING v. DECEMBER 9 DISCOVERY ORDER 9 10 CVS HEALTH, et al., Re: Dkt. No. 202 Defendants. 11 12 Northern District of California United States District Court 13 This matter has been referred to the undersigned magistrate judge for resolution of 14 discovery disputes between the parties. On December 9, 2016 the Court issued an Order 15 addressing the parties' joint letter brief regarding Plaintiffs' request to compel a further 30(b)(6) 16 deposition and addressing the parties' administrative motion to file certain documents submitted in 17 connection with the joint letter brief under seal. (Dkt. No. 201.) The Court, in relevant part, 18 denied the request to seal on the grounds that CVS had not submitted a Rule 79-5 declaration 19 attesting to the confidential information in the designated document and ordered Plaintiffs to file 20 Exhibits K and L to the joint letter brief on the public docket. (Id. at 10.) Now before the Court is 21 CVS's request for relief from the portion of that Order denying the sealing request. (Dkt. No. 22 202.) Specifically, CVS notes that it did, in fact, submit a Rule 79-5 declaration in which CVS 23 employee Thomas Moffatt averred that Exhibits K and L are letters from CVS's counsel to 24 Plaintiffs' counsel that contain confidential business information relating to CVS's internal 25 business operations and proprietary information and that disclosure could cause competitive harm 26 to CVS. (See id. at 2; see Dkt. No. 190 ¶ 7.) The Moffatt Declaration also adequately explains 27 grounds for limited redactions to other exhibits filed in support of the joint letter brief. (See Dkt. 28 No. 190 ¶¶ 4-5.) 1 The Court will sua sponte reconsider the December 9 Order. See United States v. Smith, 2 389 F.3d 944, 949 (9th Cir. 2004) (holding that a district court may sua sponte reconsider a prior, 3 interlocutory ruling over which it has continuing jurisdiction); N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 7-9(a) 4 (providing that failure to consider material facts is grounds for reconsideration); see, e.g., United 5 Tactical Sys. v. Real Action Paintball, Inc., No. 14-cv-04050-MEJ, 2015 WL 295584, at *2 (N.D. 6 Cal. Jan. 21, 2015) (sua sponte reconsidering denial of motion to file under seal). In light of 7 CVS's Rule 79-5 declaration, which adequately sets forth the confidential nature of the exhibits, 8 the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs' administrative motion to file under seal. 9 This Order terminates Docket No. 202. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 Dated: December 13, 2016 12 Northern District of California United States District Court 13 JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY 14 United States Magistrate Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2