Corcoran et al v. CVS Health Corporation

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

ORDER by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers denying 73 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting in part 76 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal.

Interested in this case?

Current View

Full Text

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 6 CHRISTOPHER CORCORAN, et al., Case No.: 15-CV-3504 YGR 7 Plaintiffs, ORDER ON ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO 8 FILE UNDER SEAL vs. 9 CVS HEALTH CORPORATION AND CVS Re: Dkt. Nos. 73, 76 10 PHARMACY, INC., 11 Defendants. Northern District of California 12 On January 15, 2016, Plaintiffs1 filed an administrative motion to file under seal portions of United States District Court 13 their oppositions to Defendants' motions to dismiss. (Dkt. No. 73.) On February 12, 2016, 14 Defendants similarly filed an administrative motion to file under seal portions of CVS Health's 15 reply in support of its motion to dismiss, and exhibits submitted in connection therewith. (Dkt. No. 16 76.) Here, both administrative motions concern information designated as confidential by 17 Defendants. Defendants thus bear the burden to demonstrate why the information should be sealed. 18 Given the dispositive nature of Defendants' motions, they must demonstrate "compelling reasons" 19 that overcome the public's right to view public records and documents including judicial records. 20 Kamakana v. City of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). 21 The Court finds Defendants met their burden with respect to only two sets of proposed 22 redactions: Exhibits 5 and 6 to the Second Moffatt Declaration (Dkt. Nos. 77-6, 77-7 as amended at 23 Dkt. Nos. 89-1, 89-2). The showing with respect to the other requests, by contrast, is not sufficient 24 under the applicable "compelling reasons" standard. Accordingly, Defendants' motion with respect 25 to Exhibits 5 and 6 to the Second Moffatt Declaration is GRANTED. The administrative motions to 26 file under seal are otherwise DENIED. 27 1 28 All terms shall have the same meaning as defined in the Court's Order on Defendants' underlying motions to dismiss entered via separate order this same day. 1 This Order terminates Docket Numbers 73, 76. 2 IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 Date: March 14, 2016 4 _______________________________________ YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Northern District of California United States District Court 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2