Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-01480/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-01480-13/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:2201 Declaratory Judgement (Insurance)

---

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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WRI GOLDEN STATE, LLC,

Plaintiff,

 v.

SAVE MART SUPERMARKETS, d/b/a

FOOD MAXX,

Defendant /

No. 07-1480 MMC 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE

PORTIONS OF DOCUMENTS UNDER

SEAL; DIRECTIONS TO CLERK;

DIRECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF 

Before the Court is plaintiff’s “Administrative Motion to File Portions of Documents

Under Seal,” filed April 14, 2008. Defendant has not filed a response thereto.

In its motion, plaintiff seeks to file under seal unredacted versions of the Declaration

of Stephen Robertson and plaintiff’s “Appendix of Evidence.” According to plaintiff, the

portions thereof plaintiff seeks to file under seal have been designated as confidential by

both parties.

“A sealing order may issue only upon a request that establishes that the document,

or portions thereof, is privileged or protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to

protection under the law.” Civil L.R. 79-5(a). “The request must be narrowly tailored to

seek sealing only of sealable material.” Id. “A stipulation . . . will not suffice to allow the

filing of documents under seal.” Id.

To the extent plaintiff has designated the subject material as confidential, the motion

will be denied, because plaintiff has failed to show the material is “privileged or protectable

as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law.” See id. Rather, plaintiff

merely states the parties have “agreed” the material “could be designated as confidential.” 

Case 3:07-cv-01480-MMC Document 90 Filed 04/30/08 Page 1 of 2
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

Irrespective of plaintiff’s decision with respect to the subject material, the Court will

consider the portions of the Declaration of Stephen Robertson and the Appendix of

Evidence that were previously filed in the public record by plaintiff.

2

(See Mark Decl., filed April 14, 2008, ¶ 1.) Such agreement is insufficient to warrant

sealing the documents under seal. See Civil L.R. 79-5(a).

To the extent defendant has designated the subject material as confidential, the

motion will be denied, because defendant has failed to make any showing, let alone the

showing required by the Local Rules of this District. See Civil L.R. 79-5(d) (providing that

where one party seeks to file under seal matter designated as confidential by another,

“[w]ithin five days . . . the designating party must file with the Court and serve a declaration

establishing that the designated information is sealable, and must lodge and serve a

narrowly tailored proposed sealing order, or must withdraw the designation of

confidentiality”). Moreover, to the extent defendant may have relied on the agreement

referenced in plaintiff’s motion, any such reliance is, as noted above, unavailing. See Civil

L.R. 79-5(a).

Accordingly, the motion is hereby DENIED.

Because plaintiff reports both parties have designated the subject material as

confidential, the Clerk is DIRECTED to follow the procedure set forth in Civil Local Rule 79-

5(e); specifically, the Clerk shall hold the unredacted versions of the Declaration of Stephen

Robertson and the Appendix of Evidence for three court days to allow plaintiff to retrieve

them and, thereafter, if not so retrieved, to dispose of them. If plaintiff wishes to have such

material considered by the Court in connection with defendants’ motion for partial summary

judgment, plaintiff shall file in the public record, no later than May 5, 2008, the unredacted

versions of the Declaration of Stephen Robertson and the Appendix of Evidence.1

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 30, 2008 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-01480-MMC Document 90 Filed 04/30/08 Page 2 of 2