Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_18-cv-02349/USCOURTS-cand-5_18-cv-02349-21/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 465
Nature of Suit: Other Immigration Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1361 Petition for Writ of Mandamus

---

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 California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

JANE DOE 1, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CHAD D. WOLF, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 18-cv-02349-BLF 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' 

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO 

FILE UNDER SEAL PORTIONS OF 

PLAINTIFFS' FIRST AMENDED 

COMPLAINT AND PLAINTIFFS' 

MOTION (1) FOR LEAVE TO FILE A 

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; (2) 

TO SUBSTITUTE PARTIES AND 

PROCEED BY PSEUDONYM; AND (3) 

TO AMEND CLASS CERTIFICATION 

ORDER

[Re: ECF 290]

Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ administrative motion to file under seal portions of 

Plaintiffs’ first amended complaint and Plaintiffs’ Motion (1) for Leave to File a First Amended 

Complaint; (2) to Substitute Parties and Proceed by Pseudonym; and (3) to Amend Class 

Certification Order. ECF 290. Defendants filed a declaration in support of this motion. ECF 296. 

For the reasons stated below, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ administrative motion. 

Plaintiffs filed their administrative motion because Defendants designated portions of 

Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint and Motion (1) for Leave to File a First Amended 

Complaint; (2) to Substitute Parties and Proceed by Pseudonym; and (3) to Amend Class 

Certification Order as “Confidential” and/or “Highly Confidential/Attorneys’ Eyes Only.” 

ECF 290, at 1. Plaintiffs do not believe that Defendants can meet the standard for sealing these 

portions of the documents and “believe the Court should deny this motion because Plaintiffs 

dispute Defendants’ over-designation of information.” ECF 290, at 2. 

This parties will submit letter briefing on this over-designation dispute to Judge DeMarchi 

Case 5:18-cv-02349-BLF Document 300 Filed 03/06/20 Page 1 of 3
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

on March 13, 2020. ECF 290, at 2; see Order Re Discovery Dispute Resolution Schedule, 

ECF 273. Plaintiffs request that this sealing request be consolidated with the over-designation 

dispute. ECF 290, at 2.

Defendants responded by submitting a declaration in support of Plaintiffs’ administrative 

motion because they are the designating party for the protected material. ECF 296, at 1. 

Defendants state that they “cannot declare that ‘all of the designated material is sealable’” because 

“Defendants do not know precisely which documents/materials Plaintiffs rely upon for their 

assertion that their identified redactions constitute sealable material.” ECF 296, at 4. Defendants 

state that they “will explain further in their portion of the forthcoming joint dispute letter . . . the 

material [that] warrants [Highly Confidential/Attorneys’ Eyes Only] designation – and thus should 

be protected from disclosure to the public.” ECF 296, at 4. Additionally, Defendants argue that 

the designated material is sealable because it “discloses vetting techniques/processes/thresholds; 

denial bases and results of individual class member applications; and sources that inform refugee 

vetting generally and Plaintiff-class members’ cases specifically.” ECF 296, at 4. Defendants 

argue that “public disclosure of the designated information creates a substantial risk of serious 

harm to the security of the United States and to the integrity of the refugee program by providing 

insight that could enable applicants and bad actors to adjust both their behavior and the 

information available to conduct security vetting in administering the refugee program.” 

ECF 296, at 4. 

Parties moving to seal documents must comply with the procedures established by Civil 

Local Rule 79-5. 

First, under Civil Local Rule 79-5(d)(1)(A), “[r]eference to a stipulation or protective order 

that allows a party to designate certain documents as confidential is not sufficient to establish that 

a document, or portions thereof, are sealable.” The Court, therefore, need not wait for resolution 

of the over-designation dispute by Judge DeMarchi as the designation of material as “Highly 

Confidential/Attorneys’ Eyes Only” would not be a sufficient reason to seal information. 

Second, under Civil Local Rule, the designating party “must file a declaration as required 

by subsection 79-5(d)(1)(A) establishing that all of the designated material is sealable.” Civ. L. R. 

Case 5:18-cv-02349-BLF Document 300 Filed 03/06/20 Page 2 of 3
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

79-5(e)(1). While Defendants, the designating party, filed a declaration and provided some 

reasons as to why the information should be sealed, they specifically state that they “cannot 

declare that ‘all of the designated material is sealable’ as required under LR 79-5(d)(1)(A).” 

ECF 296, at 4. As this declaration does not comply with the Civil Local Rules, the Court DENIES 

Plaintiffs’ administration motion to file under seal. 

For any request that has been denied because the party designating a document as 

confidential or subject to a protective order has not provided sufficient reasons to seal, the 

submitting party must file the unredacted (or lesser redacted) documents into the public record no 

earlier than 4 days and no later than 10 days from the filing of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 6, 2020 

______________________________________

BETH LABSON FREEMAN

United States District Judge

Case 5:18-cv-02349-BLF Document 300 Filed 03/06/20 Page 3 of 3