Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-03466/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-03466-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1981 Civil Rights

---

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

Defendants attached to a declaration filed in support of the instant motion a copy of

an e-mail sent to them by counsel for plaintiffs in which plaintiffs set forth their position with

respect to the motion.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THE MITCHELL LAW GROUP,

Plaintiff,

 v.

OCC VENTURE LLC,

Defendant /

No. C-09-3466 MMC

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE

EXHIBITS UNDER SEAL; DIRECTIONS

TO CLERK; DIRECTIONS TO

DEFENDANTS

Before the Court is defendants OCC Venture LLC and Shorenstein Realty Services,

L.P.’s Administrative Motion to File Exhibits Under Seal, filed May 6, 2010. Plaintiffs have

not filed a response.1

 Having read and considered defendants’ motion, the Court rules as

follows.

To the extent the motion seeks an order sealing Exhibit G to the Declaration of Paul

F. Utrecht, the motion is hereby DENIED. The exhibit is a copy of a transcript of

proceedings conducted in state court during which the parties placed on the record the

terms of a settlement, and the transcript was not sealed by the state court.

To the extent the motion seeks an order sealing Exhibits H and I to the Declaration

of Paul F. Utrecht, the motion is hereby DENIED. The exhibits are unexecuted written

Case 3:09-cv-03466-MMC Document 73 Filed 05/20/10 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

2

Although not relevant to resolution of the instant administrative motion, the Court

notes that defendants do not cite to either Exhibits H or I in their memorandum of points

and authorities in support of their pending motion for summary judgment, and,

consequently, the relevance of the contents of the drafts is not apparent.

2

drafts of the parties’ settlement agreement. As stated above, the essential terms of the

parties’ agreement were placed on the record in open court, and defendants have not

pointed to any language in either draft that was not placed on the record and which is itself

sealable within the meaning of Civil Local Rule 79-5.2

Accordingly, the administrative motion is hereby DENIED.

Should defendants wish Exhibits G, H, and/or I to become part of the record,

defendants are hereby DIRECTED to electronically file such exhibits in the public record no

later than May 26, 2010. See Civil L.R. 79-5(e).

The Clerk is hereby DIRECTED to follow the procedure set forth in Civil Local Rule

79-5(e) with respect to the lodged originals and copies of Exhibits G, H, and I.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 20, 2010 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:09-cv-03466-MMC Document 73 Filed 05/20/10 Page 2 of 2