Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02473/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02473-14/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal - Employment Discrimination

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LAWRENCE ROMANECK,

Plaintiff,

v.

DEUTSCHE ASSET MANAGEMENT,

et al.,

Defendants.

NO. C05-2473 TEH 

ORDER RE: DEFENDANTS’

MOTION TO FILE

DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL

The Court is in receipt of Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, papers in

support thereof, and Defendants’ separate motion to file most of their summary judgment

papers under seal. Although there appears to be good cause to file portions of the submitted

papers under seal, Defendants have failed to comply with the requirement that a request to

seal documents “must be narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material.” Civ.

L.R.79-5(a). A request to seal documents or portions thereof must establish “that the

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

entitled to protection under the law, [hereinafter referred to as ‘sealable.’].” Id. (emphasis

added). As the commentary to the local rule governing filing under seal explains, a public

copy of all documents filed under seal should be “filed and available for public review that

has the minimum redactions necessary to protect sealable information.” Commentary to

Civ. L.R. 79-5(a) (emphasis added). Similarly, the parties’ stipulated protective order in this

case states that “[c]onfidential information shall be placed under seal in submissions to the

Court only where redacting, coding identities, summarizing or other objective treatment

cannot be made.” Protective Order ¶ 8 (Ex. A to Johnsrud Decl.).

Because Defendants have not complied with the requirements of Civil Local Rule

79-5(a) or with the protective order in this case, the Court DENIES, without prejudice,

Case 3:05-cv-02473-TEH Document 80 Filed 06/21/06 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Defendants’ motion to file documents under seal. Defendants shall meet and confer with

Plaintiff and re-file their motion, with the narrowly tailored requests contemplated by the

Local Rules and the parties’ stipulated protective order, on or before Wednesday, June 28,

2006. Defendants shall also comply with Civil Local Rule 79-5(c), which governs requests

to file portions of a document under seal. This process shall not delay the hearing or briefing

schedule on Defendants’ motion because Plaintiff and the Court have already received copies

of the unredacted documents.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all future requests to file documents under seal by

any party shall comply with both the parties’ stipulated protective order and Civil Local Rule

79-5(a)’s requirement that requests to file documents or portions thereof under seal must be

“narrowly tailored.”

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 06/21/06 

THELTON E. HENDERSON, JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 3:05-cv-02473-TEH Document 80 Filed 06/21/06 Page 2 of 2