Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_11-cv-03086/USCOURTS-cand-4_11-cv-03086-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Personal Injury

---

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 

GREGORY K. TUCKER and REBECCA 

TUCKER, 

 Plaintiffs, 

 v. 

WRIGHT MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY, INC. 

et al., 

 Defendants. 

Case No.: 11-cv-03086-YGR

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO PLACE 

CERTAIN EXHIBITS UNDER SEAL

On December 18, 2012, Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Place Certain Exhibits Under Seal 

(“Motion”). (Dkt. No. 94.) At issue in the Motion are various deposition transcripts, including that of 

Plaintiff Gregory Tucker, and documents produced by Defendants in this action (“Documents at 

Issue”). The Documents at Issue are attached as exhibits to declarations in support of Plaintiffs’ 

oppositions to Defendants’ pending motion for summary judgment and various motions to exclude 

expert testimony. 

The Motion indicates that certain pages from the deposition transcripts of Jorge Ochoa and 

Brad James were designated as Confidential by Defendants pursuant to the protective Order in this 

action. (Motion at 2, ¶ 4.) The Motion also indicates that the documents produced by Defendants 

have been designated Confidential pursuant to the protective order. (Id. at 2, ¶ 6.) It is unclear to the 

Court what the basis of the Motion is for the deposition transcripts of Gregory Tucker and Lester 

Hendrickson, although the Court presumes that the transcripts have also been designated as 

Confidential by Defendants under the protective order. 

Case 4:11-cv-03086-YGR Document 99 Filed 01/04/13 Page 1 of 2
2 

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 

Under Civ. L.R. 79-5(d), which addresses “Filing a Document Designated Confidential by 

Another Party,” a non-designating party wishing to file a document designated confidential must file 

and serve an administrative motion to seal and lodge the document or memorandum in accordance 

with the Local Rule. “Within 7 days thereafter, the designating party must file with the Court and 

serve a declaration establishing that the designated information is sealable, and must lodge and serve a 

narrowly tailored proposed sealing order, or must withdraw the designation of confidentiality. If the 

designating party does not file its responsive declaration as required by this subsection, the document 

or proposed filing will be made part of the public record.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(d). 

Plaintiffs filed the pending Motion at least in part because Defendants have designated the 

Documents at Issue as Confidential. Defendants, however, did not file a declaration establishing that 

the designated exhibits at issue in the Motion are sealable, nor did counsel lodge and serve a 

narrowly-tailored proposed sealing order or withdraw the designation of confidentiality. See Civ. 

L.R. 79-5(d). As such, the Court DENIES the Motion for failure to comply with Civ. L.R. 79-5(d).1

 

To the extent that Plaintiffs themselves sought to seal any Documents at Issue because they believe 

those documents should be sealed, the Court DENIES the Motion for failure to establish that there are 

compelling reasons warranting sealing and that the proposed sealing order is narrowly tailored. See

Civ. L.R. 79-5(a); Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010). 

The Documents at Issue in this Motion must be publicly-filed by Plaintiffs no later than 

Tuesday, January 8, 2013. Plaintiffs must immediately provide Chambers copies of all publicly-filed 

exhibits, with the ECF headers reflecting the filing date and docket item number. The Chambers 

copies must be three-hole punched, to be inserted in to the Chambers binders previously submitted. 

This Order terminates Dkt. No. 94. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: January 4, 2013 

_________________________________________ 

YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

 

1

 The Court further notes that “[a] stipulation . . . that allows a party to designate documents as sealable, will 

not suffice to allow the filing of documents under seal.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(a) (emphasis supplied). 

Case 4:11-cv-03086-YGR Document 99 Filed 01/04/13 Page 2 of 2