Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-05025/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-05025-23/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Other Contract

---

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 Plaintiff attached a proof of service alleging that

she had electronically filed and served the motion to seal.

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GLORIA GRENING WOLK,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

PHILIP R. GREEN,

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C06-5025 BZ

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE

DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF

MOTION TO FILE A THIRD

AMENDED COMPLAINT UNDER SEAL

On November 1, 2007, plaintiff filed a motion requesting

that a declaration be filed under seal. Instead of

electronically filing the motion to seal, it appears that

plaintiff only mailed the motion to the court.1 On the same

day, plaintiff electronically filed the declaration she is

seeking leave to file under seal, so it is now public. 

Plaintiff failed to comply with Civil Local Rule 79-5

which governs the sealing of documents. Moreover, the motion

fails to justify sealing the declaration in light of the

presumption of public access to court documents. See e.g.

Case 3:06-cv-05025-BZ Document 104 Filed 11/05/07 Page 1 of 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

2

Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978). 

Having read the declaration, I find there is no good cause to

file it under seal. For all these reasons, plaintiff’s motion

is DENIED.

Dated: November 5, 2007

 Bernard Zimmerman 

 United States Magistrate Judge

G:\BZALL\-BZCASES\WOLK\Order Deny Plaintiff's Motion to File Declaration

Under Seal.wpd

Case 3:06-cv-05025-BZ Document 104 Filed 11/05/07 Page 2 of 2