Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-05744/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-05744-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 195
Nature of Suit: Contract Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Product Liability

---

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARTIN MURRAY,

Plaintiff,

 v.

SEARS, ROEBUCK AND CO. and ELECTROLUX

HOME PRODUCTS, INC., 

Defendants. /

No. 09-05744 CW

ORDER DENYING

ELECTROLUX HOME

PRODUCTS’ MOTION

FOR

ADMINISTRATIVE

RELIEF

In opposing Plaintiff’s motion for relief from the discovery

stay in this case, Electrolux filed in the public record a letter

which describes a document produced in Thorogood. The letter was

written by Plaintiff’s counsel and it challenges the confidential

designations of certain material. In relevant part, the letter

states, 

Portions of the document produced in the Thorogood Case as

Bates-label no. ELE 269, including a) fax transmission

header, b) “5. Drum Front . . . The other issue with this

part is whether we need to have this component in stainless. 

The only time this is visible is when you stick your head

inside the drum and look at the drum front,” and c) “5. Drum

Front . . . Action: . . . Marketing requirement confirmed

for this part to be stainless. This should be determined

prior to any additional run on this component. The

elimination of stainless in this area will have a favorable

cost impact.” 

Electrolux did not seek to file the letter under seal. However,

Electrolux did mark confidential the document from which

Plaintiff’s counsel quoted, ELE 269. 

Case 4:09-cv-05744-CW Document 105 Filed 07/22/10 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

In opposing Defendant’s motion to stay discovery and strike

the class allegations, Plaintiff’s counsel quoted from ELE 269 and

argued that Electrolux waived any right to confidentiality

concerning that document. See Opp. at 3 n.5. Plaintiff’s counsel

attached ELE 269 to his own declaration, removed the

confidentiality markings, and redacted the entire document except

for the language quoted in the above described letter. Electrolux

now moves to place redacted ELE 269 under seal and for an order

“requiring [Plaintiff] and his counsel to comply with Civil Local

Rule 79-5(d) and the Protective Order Governing Confidential

Materials.” Motion at 1.

It appears that both Plaintiff’s counsel and Electrolux are to

blame for the instant dispute. If Electrolux wished to keep the

contents of ELE 269 out of the public record, it should not have

filed the letter from Plaintiff’s counsel in the public record in

the first place; and Plaintiff’s counsel should not have taken it

upon himself to remove confidentiality markings and file ELE 269 in

the public record. If either party wishes to file documents under

seal, it shall follow the rules outlined in Civil Local Rule 79-5. 

At this juncture, the Court will not place redacted ELE 269 under

seal because Electrolux has not followed the proper procedures for

requesting that it do so. Accordingly, Electrolux’s motion is

denied (Docket No. 101). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 07/22/10 

CLAUDIA WILKEN

United States District Judge

Case 4:09-cv-05744-CW Document 105 Filed 07/22/10 Page 2 of 2