Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-00098/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-00098-79/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:1981 Job Discrimination (Race)

---

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

EDWARD ALVARADO, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION,

Defendant. /

No. C 04-0098 SI

ORDER UNSEALING DOCUMENTS

RELATED TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION

FOR SANCTIONS

By order filed August 8, 2007, the Court directed the parties to show cause why documents

related to defendant’s motion for sanctions should not be unsealed. Defendant’s response concedes that

the documents do not fall within any of the categories of documents specified by the Local Rules as

appropriate for sealing. However, defendant requests that the documents remain sealed because

plaintiffs’ counsel, Mr. McCoy, has threatened to file a lawsuit regarding allegedly defamatory

statements contained in the motion for sanctions and related administrative motions. 

Plaintiffs’ response asserts that the documents at issue should remain sealed because they are

“otherwise entitled to protection under the law.” Although the asserted legal basis for such protection

is unclear, plaintiff contends that the documents are “libelous,” and should remain sealed to protect Mr.

McCoy from embarrassment.

The Court finds that parties have failed to demonstrate that the documents should remain sealed,

and accordingly UNSEALS the documents related to defendant’s motion for sanctions (Docket Nos.

817, 837, 867-869, 885 and 908). Neither party has shown that the documents are privileged or

otherwise entitled to protection under the law as required by Civil Local Rule 79-5. The reasons

asserted by the parties – protection against embarrassment and a fear of being sued – do not outweigh

Case 3:04-cv-00098-SI Document 927 Filed 09/10/07 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

the public’s interest in these proceedings and the general presumption in favor of public access to court

files. Further, the Court is skeptical that the documents at issue could give rise to a defamation lawsuit;

in the Court’s view such a lawsuit would be frivolous due to, inter alia, the litigation privilege. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 10, 2007 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:04-cv-00098-SI Document 927 Filed 09/10/07 Page 2 of 2