Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-md-01930/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-md-01930-65/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 480
Nature of Suit: Consumer Credit
Cause of Action: 42:405 Fair Housing 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 1

For the reasons stated in the Court’s order of November 19, 2010, the Court

considers said declaration to be responsive to both administrative motions.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

In re WELLS FARGO RESIDENTIAL

MORTGAGE LENDING DISCRIMINATION

LITIGATION

___________________________________

This Document Relates To:

ALL ACTIONS. /

M: 08-md-01930 MMC

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFFS’

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS FOR

SEALING ORDERS; DIRECTIONS TO

PLAINTIFFS

Before the Court are the following motions: (1) plaintiffs’ “Administrative Motion Re:

Sealing Order,” filed October 12, 2010, by which motion plaintiffs seek to file under seal

plaintiffs’ motion for class certification, the declaration offered in support of the motion, and

the eighteen exhibits attached thereto; and (2) plaintiffs’ “Administrative Motion Re: Sealing

Order,” filed October 29, 2010, by which motion plaintiffs seek to file under seal plaintiffs’

joint opposition to defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.’s (“Wells Fargo”) motion for summary

judgment, the declaration offered in support of the joint opposition, and the eight exhibits

attached thereto. On October 18, 2010, Wells Fargo filed a responsive declaration,1 to

which plaintiffs have replied.

By order filed November 19, 2010, the Court found Wells Fargo’s responsive

declarations insufficient to show any portion of the subject documents are properly filed

Case 3:08-md-01930-MMC Document 359 Filed 01/05/11 Page 1 of 3
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

2

Although Wells Fargo identifies lines 15 and 16 on page 59 as containing

confidential information, it is readily apparent from Wells Fargo’s description thereof that

such confidential information is contained in lines 19 and 20 on page 59.

3

In its supplemental response, Wells Fargo implicitly requests that the Court strike

from the record any part of a deposition transcript not explicitly cited in plaintiffs’

memorandum of points and authorities in support of its motion for class certification. Wells

Fargo fails to show good cause exists for striking such lines/pages from the record, and,

indeed, excerpts not explicitly cited may provide context for or clarify an ambiguity in

excerpts explicitly cited. Accordingly, any such implicit request by Wells Fargo is hereby

DENIED.

2

under seal, and afforded Wells Leave to supplement its showing. Thereafter, Wells Fargo

filed a supplemental response, to which plaintiffs have filed a reply. Having read and

considered the above-referenced filings, the Court rules as follows.

A. Plaintiffs’ Administrative Motion Filed October 12, 2010

Wells Fargo has shown that the following portions of the Declaration of Wendy J.

Harrison in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification (“Harrison Class Certification

Declaration”) are properly filed under seal: (1) page 173 of Exhibit A; (2) lines 19 to 20 on

page 59 of Exhibit C;2 (3) Exhibit G; and (4) Exhibit N. Accordingly, to the extent plaintiffs’

administrative motion seeks leave to file such portions of the Harrison Class Certification

Declaration under seal, the motion is hereby GRANTED.

Wells Fargo has not shown, however, that Exhibit M to the Harrison Class

Certification Declaration is properly filed under seal. Accordingly, to the extent plaintiffs’

administrative motion seeks leave to file such exhibit under seal, the motion is hereby

DENIED.3 Further, Wells Fargo does not contend in it supplemental response that any

other portion of the Harrison Class Certification Declaration or any portion of plaintiffs’

motion for class certification is properly filed under seal, and, accordingly, to the extent

plaintiffs’ administrative motion seeks leave to file such materials under seal, the motion is

hereby DENIED.

In light of the above, plaintiffs are hereby DIRECTED to file, no later than five court

days from the date of this order, (1) the motion for class certification in the public record, (2)

a redacted version of the Harrison Class Certification Declaration in the public record, and

Case 3:08-md-01930-MMC Document 359 Filed 01/05/11 Page 2 of 3
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

4

Exhibit B to the Harrison Summary Judgment Declaration is the same document as

Exhibit A to the Harrison Class Certification Declaration.

5

To the extent Wells Fargo’s supplemental response includes an implicit request to

strike from the record any part of a deposition transcript not explicitly cited in plaintiffs’

opposition to the motion for summary judgment, the request is hereby DENIED for the

reasons stated in footnote 3 above. Moreover, any such request is untimely, as the Court

ruled on the merits of Wells Fargo’s motion for summary judgment prior to the date on

which such supplemental response was filed.

3

(3) the unredacted version of the Harrison Class Certification Declaration under seal.

B. Plaintiffs’ Administrative Motion Filed October 29, 2010

Wells Fargo has shown that the following portions of the Declaration of Wendy J.

Harrison in Support of Plaintiffs’ Joint Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Summary

Judgment (“Harrison Summary Judgment Declaration”) are properly filed under seal:

(1) page 173 of Exhibit B;4 (2) lines 19 to 20 on page 59 of Exhibit C; and (3) Exhibit E

Accordingly, to the extent plaintiffs’ administrative motion seeks leave to file such portions

of the Harrison Summary Judgment Declaration under seal, the motion is hereby

GRANTED.

Wells Fargo does not contend in its supplemental response that any other portion of

the Harrison Summary Judgment Declaration or any portion of plaintiffs’ opposition to Wells

Fargo’s motion for summary judgment is properly filed under seal, and, accordingly, to the

extent plaintiffs’ administrative motion seeks leave to file such materials under seal, the

motion is hereby DENIED.5

In light of the above, plaintiffs are hereby DIRECTED to file, no later than five court

days from the date of this order, (1) plaintiffs’ opposition to Wells Fargo’s motion for

summary judgment in the public record, (2) a redacted version of the Harrison Summary

Judgment Declaration in the public record, and (3) the unredacted version of the Harrison

Summary Judgment Declaration under seal.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 5, 2011 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-md-01930-MMC Document 359 Filed 01/05/11 Page 3 of 3