Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_12-cv-03897/USCOURTS-cand-4_12-cv-03897-18/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
Cause of Action: 18:1962 Racketeering (RICO) Act

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DIANA ELLIS, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

 vs. 

J.P. MORGAN CHASE & CO., et al., 

Defendants. 

Case No.: 12-cv-03897- YGR 

ORDER REGARDING COURTESY COPIES 

Re: Dkt. No. 238 

Courtesy copies of the parties’ briefs on Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (see 

Dkt. No. 238), statement(s) of undisputed facts, and any related administrative motions to file 

documents under seal shall be delivered to Chambers in binders and on a CD, DVD, or USB drive 

in Word and PDF format, each including hyperlinks. Specifically, all citations to the evidence 

shall be made available in hyperlink form; clicking on the hyperlinks shall result in the relevant 

PDF document opening up to the pages cited. Importantly, although clicking on the hyperlink 

should jump to the appropriate pin-cited page of the record document, the relevant record 

document in its entirety should open upon clicking the hyperlink (not merely an excerpt thereof), 

thus permitting the Court to review the cited material in its full context. The CD/DVD/USB drive 

label shall include the names of the parties, the case number, and a description of the documents. 

With respect to documents tentatively filed under seal, the parties need not submit 

chambers copies of redacted versions in hard copy. The parties shall only submit paper courtesy 

copies of unredacted versions of the document which are highlighted to reflect the portion thereof 

they seek to have sealed. The Court also reminds the parties that the heightened “compelling 

reasons” standard shall apply to sealing requests given the dispositive nature of Defendants’ 

motion. Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: March 14, 2016 

_______________________________________ YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

Case 4:12-cv-03897-YGR Document 239 Filed 03/14/16 Page 1 of 1