Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-03424/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-03424-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 410
Nature of Suit: Antitrust
Cause of Action: 15:15 Antitrust Litigation

---

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

CAVE CONSULTING GROUP, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

OPTUMINSIGHT, INC.,,

Defendant.

Case No. 15-cv-03424-JCS 

ORDER DENYING ADMINISTRATIVE 

MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL

Re: Dkt. No. 124

On September 9, 2016, Plaintiff Cave Consulting Group, Inc. (“CCGroup”) filed an 

administrative motion to file certain materials under seal. See Admin. Mot. (dkt. 124). 

CCGroup’s only stated basis for sealing is that the material at issue was designated by Defendant 

OptumInsight, Inc. as “Confidential-Attorneys’ Eyes Only” or “Highly Confidential-Attorneys’ 

Eyes Only” under the parties’ stipulated protective order. See Brophy Decl. (dkt. 124-1). 

Civil Local Rule 79-5(e) provides that when a party moves to file under seal on the basis 

that another party has designated material as confidential, “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” within four days. Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1). That time has expired and OptumInsight has 

not filed a responsive declaration. The administrative motion is therefore DENIED, and CCGroup 

is ORDERED to file the material at issue in the public record no earlier than September 27, 2016 

and no later than October 3, 2016. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(2).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 23, 2016

______________________________________

JOSEPH C. SPERO

Chief Magistrate Judge

Case 3:15-cv-03424-JCS Document 128 Filed 09/23/16 Page 1 of 1