Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-05340/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-05340-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 47:227 Telephone Consumer Protection Act

---

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

LYNN SLOVIN, ET AL.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

SUNRUN, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.15-cv-05340-YGR (JSC)

ORDER RE: ADMINISTRATIVE 

MOTIONS TO SEAL

Re: Dkt. Nos. 99 & 101

Now pending before the Court are Administrative Motions to Seal filed in connection with 

the parties’ June 1, 2017 Joint Discovery Letter Brief. (Dkt. Nos. 99 & 101.) Under Local Rule 

79-5(a) sealing is appropriate only where the requesting party “establishes that the document, or 

portions thereof is privileged or protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection 

under the law.” N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 79–5(a). A party must “narrowly tailor” its request to 

sealable material only. Id.

Plaintiffs seek sealing of Exhibits C and E to the letter brief because Defendants 

designated these documents as confidential pursuant to the parties’ protective order. Under Civil 

Local Rule 79-5(e)(1) Defendants were therefore required within “4 days of the filing of the 

Administrative Motion to File Under Seal... [to file] a declaration as required by subsection 79-

5(d)(1)(A) establishing that all of the designated material is sealable.” Defendants have failed to 

do so. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ Administrative Motion to Seal is DENIED. (Dkt. No. 99.)

Defendants seek sealing of portions of the Declaration of Lauri A. Mazzuchetti and 

Exhibits 2, 3, and 4 thereto. Defendants contend that portions of the Mazzuchetti Declaration and 

Exhibits 2-3 contain proprietary business and calling records of Defendants “disclosure of which 

might place Defendants at a disadvantage with respect to their existing and potential competitors, 

Case 4:15-cv-05340-YGR Document 105 Filed 06/13/17 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

who would gain access to marketing and lead information contained therein.” (Dtk. No. 101 at ¶

3; Dkt. No. 1-101-1 at 2:24.) Defendants also seek sealing of Exhibit 4 which is Plaintiff Samuel 

Katz’s Second Supplemental Response to Defendant Sunrun Inc.’s First Set of Interrogatories. 

(Dkt. No. 101-4.) Defendants’ motion to seal is neither narrowly tailored nor does it describe with 

sufficient particularity the confidential business information which is properly sealable. The Court 

agrees that Exhibit 2, which appears to be a screenshot of Defendants’ database, contains 

proprietary business information; however, the same cannot be said for the Mazzuchetti 

Declaration or Exhibit 3 to the deposition testimony of Matthew James Snider. Likewise, 

although Defendants contend that sealing of Exhibit 4 is appropriate because it contains Plaintiff’s 

phone number, the exhibit is 13 pages long and contains lots of information that is not 

confidential. Accordingly, Defendants’ motion to seal is DENIED without prejudice to renewal 

on a proper showing as to the Mazzuchetti Declaration, Exhibit 3, and Exhibit 4. The motion is 

granted as to Exhibit 2.

This Order disposes of Docket Nos. 99 and 101.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 13, 2017

JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:15-cv-05340-YGR Document 105 Filed 06/13/17 Page 2 of 2