Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-04297/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-04297-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

BENJAMIN D. WINIG,

Plaintiff,

 v.

CINGULAR WIRELESS LLC,

Defendant.

 /

No. C-06-4297 MMC

ORDER GRANTING IN PART, DENYING

IN PART, AND IN PART DEFERRING

RULING ON PLAINTIFF’S

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE

MEMORANDUM AND DOCUMENTS

UNDER SEAL

Before the Court is plaintiff’s administrative motion to file under seal plaintiff’s

Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion for Class Certification

(“Memorandum”), and Exhibits A through N to the Declaration of Nathan Lowery in Support

of Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification, in light of defendant’s having previously

designated as confidential the documents contained or discussed therein. Defendant has

filed a Memorandum, as well as the Declaration of Jacqueline P. Jackson, in support of its

designation of Exhibits A through N as confidential. Having considered the parties’

submissions, the Court rules as follows.

1. To the extent plaintiff seeks leave to file under seal Exhibit A to the Declaration of

Nathan Lowery, defendant’s responsive declaration fails to establish that the entirety of

said exhibit is properly sealable. Exhibit A consists of a “Customer Service Summary,” and,

as lodged with the Court, several identifying items, such as the wireless number and name

Case 3:06-cv-04297-MMC Document 106 Filed 07/03/08 Page 1 of 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

1

 In the event plaintiff is of the view that the account number has some bearing on

the resolution of the motion for class certification, plaintiff, in lieu of filing Exhibit A in the

public record, may file a supplemental declaration, no later than July 8, 2008, explaining

such significance and seeking to file an unredacted version of the exhibit under seal.

2

associated with the account, appear to have previously been redacted from the document. 

The only apparently confidential item remaining is the account number located on page

three of the Summary, and such information can be easily redacted as well. Moreover,

neither party asserts that the account number on the Summary has any significance with

respect to plaintiff’s motion for class certification. Accordingly, the administrative motion is

hereby DENIED with respect to Exhibit A to the Declaration of Nathan Lowery, and plaintiff

is hereby DIRECTED to file in the public record, no later than July 8, 2008, a version of

Exhibit A in which, in addition to the previous redactions, the customer account number

located on page three of said exhibit is redacted. If plaintiff fails to timely file said exhibit in

the public record, the Court will not consider it in ruling on plaintiff’s motion for class

certification.1

 

2. To the extent plaintiff seeks leave to file under seal Exhibits B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I,

J, and L to the Declaration of Nathan Lowery, defendant’s responsive declaration

establishes that each of said exhibits constitutes sealable trade secret information or

confidential customer information. Accordingly, the motion is hereby GRANTED with

respect to said exhibits, and the Clerk is directed to file under seal the unredacted versions

of said exhibits. 

3. To the extent plaintiff seeks leave to file under seal Exhibits K, M, and N to the

Declaration of Nathan Lowery, defendant’s responsive declaration fails to establish each of

said exhibits “is privileged or protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to

protection under the law.” See Civil L.R. 79-5(a). Indeed, defendant’s responsive

declaration does not ask that Exhibits M and N be filed under seal, nor have defendants

filed any other declaration addressing such exhibits. See Civil L.R. 79-5(d) (providing that,

if the designating party does not file, within five days of filing of motion for sealing order, “a

declaration establishing that the designated information is sealable,” the proposed filings

Case 3:06-cv-04297-MMC Document 106 Filed 07/03/08 Page 2 of 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

2

 This example is provided for illustrative purposes only, and is not intended to set

forth all of the material that appears to be of a nonconfidential nature.

3

“will be made part of the public record”). Accordingly, the Administrative Motion is hereby

DENIED with respect to said exhibits. Plaintiff is hereby DIRECTED to file in the public

record, no later than July 8, 2008, Exhibits K, M, and N to the Declaration of Nathan

Lowery. If plaintiff fails to timely file said exhibits in the public record, the Court will not

consider them in ruling on plaintiff’s motion for class certification. 

4. With respect to the Memorandum, plaintiff has not shown the entirety of such

document is confidential, and portions thereof plainly are not. (See, e.g., Pl.’s

Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion for Class Certification at 6:3-6

(discussing contents of defendant’s Rate Plan Brochures).)2

 A party may not designate an

entire document as confidential when only part of the document contains confidential

information. See Civil L.R. 79-5(a) (providing request to file document under seal “must be

narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material”). Accordingly, the Court will

defer ruling on the motion with respect to the Memorandum, to afford plaintiff the

opportunity to file, no later than July 8, 2008, a supplemental declaration identifying with

particularity the portions thereof that plaintiff claims are subject to sealing and the reason(s)

therefor.

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, plaintiff’s administrative motion is

hereby GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, and further ruling thereon is DEFERRED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 3, 2008 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-04297-MMC Document 106 Filed 07/03/08 Page 3 of 3