Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00393/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00393-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

LIVINGSTON & MATTESICH LAW

CORPORATION,

NO. CIV. S-05-0393 WBS DAD

Plaintiff, 

v. ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

TO FILE UNDER SEAL

ARIZONA BEVERAGE COMPANY LLC,

a New York limited liability

company; BEVERAGE MARKETING

USA, INC., a New York business

corporation; FEROLITO AND

VULTAGGIO LTD., a New York

business corporation;

FEROLITO, VULTAGGIO & SONS, a

business entity of unknown

form; and HORNELL BREWING

COMPANY, INC., a New York

business corporation,

Defendants.

----oo0oo----

Plaintiff seeks to file under seal its reply to

defendants’ opposition to plaintiff’s motion for partial summary

judgment upon the ground that these papers will contain

discussion of legal advice it gave to one or more defendants in a

prior case handled for one or more defendants, as well as the

Case 2:05-cv-00393-WBS-DAD Document 19 Filed 07/05/05 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

fees charged for those matters. Plaintiff submits a declaration

from its counsel of record stating that defendants’ counsel

orally represented to her that defendants do not object to this

application, but do not join in it. (Halko Decl. ¶ 3). 

A failure to object is not the same as a joinder in the

motion. As it stands, plaintiff’s ex parte application to file

under seal is insufficient to overcome the presumption in favor

of public access to judicial records. See Nixon v. Warner

Communications, 435 U.S. 589, 602 (1978). Although federal

courts recognize an attorney-client privilege under Federal Rule

of Evidence 501, Swidler & Berlin v. United States, 524 U.S. 399,

403 (1998), the privilege belongs to the client and not the

attorney. United States v. Partin, 601 F.2d 1000, 1009 (9th Cir.

1979).

It is unclear to the court whether the parties in this

case agree that the subject information is protected by the

attorney-client privilege and that such privilege has not been

waived by defendant here. See Gomez v. Vernon, 255 F.3d 1118,

1131 (9th Cir. 2001)(“The privilege may be waived by the client

either implicitly, by placing privileged matters in controversy,

or explicitly, by turning over privileged documents.”).

Therefore, the court will permit the reply papers to be

filed under seal only if within ten days from the date of this

order:

(1) defendants affirmatively file with the court, in

writing, their intention to join the motion to seal these

documents; and 

(2) defendants and plaintiff file with the court a

Case 2:05-cv-00393-WBS-DAD Document 19 Filed 07/05/05 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

3

stipulation that the attorney-client privilege has not been

waived.

Otherwise, the reply papers will be ordered filed not

under seal.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 1, 2005

Case 2:05-cv-00393-WBS-DAD Document 19 Filed 07/05/05 Page 3 of 3