Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-02833/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-02833-19/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

ORDER (No. 3:10-cv-02833-LB) 

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 

San Francisco Division 

BRENDA HILL, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN, 

INC., et al., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 10-cv-02833-LB 

ORDER RE: EIGHTH, NINTH AND 

TENTH SEALING MOTIONS 

[Re: ECF Nos. 215, 222, 229] 

On July 27, 2015, the court entered an order resolving seven sealing motions that were filed at 

ECF Nos. 182, 184, 193, 200, 206, 212, and 214. (See Order re Seven Administrative Motions to 

Seal, ECF No. 218.) In that order, the court required the sealing of (1) monetary terms set forth in 

the Confidential Settlement Agreement; (2) confidential settlement terms related to programmatic 

commitments set forth in the Confidential Settlement Agreement; (3) confidential commitments 

by the respective Parties in the Confidential Settlement Agreement that are not germane to 

Friedman’s fee dispute; (4) confidential “Lawsuit Information” as defined in the Confidential 

Settlement Agreement; and (5) confidential settlement communications and confidential 

settlement negotiations conducted under Local ADR Rule 7-5. (Id. at 2.) To that end, the court 

ordered the parties to file the proposed redacted versions of documents that were attached to the 

Declaration of Jan E. Eakins in support of Defendants’ Administrative Motion to Seal dated June 

30, 2015. (Id.) 

Case 3:10-cv-02833-LB Document 230 Filed 08/03/15 Page 1 of 3
2 

ORDER (No. 3:10-cv-02833-LB) 

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 

There was, however, an eighth sealing motion filed by Mr. Friedman at ECF No. 215 which 

the court’s Order re Seven Administrative Motions to Seal did not cover. By that eighth sealing 

motion, Mr. Friedman sought leave “to file a reply to Kaiser’s Opposition re Sealing Issues under 

a temporary seal.” (Motion, ECF No. 215 at 1.) So, on July 29, 2015, because no proposed order 

was filed along with the eighth sealing motion, the court stamped the motion as “granted” and 

filed the stamped motion as an order. (7/29/2015 Order, ECF No. 221.) The court meant this order 

to require Mr. Friedman to redact that same kinds of information in his reply that it had ordered 

sealed in the other documents. It did not intend its order to “deny a permanent seal on all 

documents,” as Mr. Friedman now suggests. 

Presumably because the court’s 7/29/2015 Order did not specify which portions of Mr. 

Friedman’s reply were sealed, later on June 29, 2015, Kaiser filed a ninth sealing motion that 

included a proposed redacted version of Mr. Friedman’s reply. (Motion, ECF No. 222.) As with 

the other documents, the proposed redactions covered (1) monetary terms set forth in the 

Confidential Settlement Agreement; (2) confidential settlement terms related to programmatic 

commitments set forth in the Confidential Settlement Agreement; (3) confidential commitments 

by the respective Parties in the Confidential Settlement Agreement that are not germane to 

Friedman’s fee dispute; (4) confidential “Lawsuit Information” as defined in the Confidential 

Settlement Agreement; and (5) confidential settlement communications and confidential 

settlement negotiations conducted under Local ADR Rule 7-5. (Id. at 2.) 

On August 3, 2015, Mr. Friedman filed the tenth sealing motion, in which he seeks leave to 

file under seal an opposition to the ninth sealing motion filed by Kaiser. (Motion, ECF No. 229.) 

The court grants the ninth sealing motion (ECF No. 222) and orders that Kaiser’s proposed 

redacted version of Mr. Friedman’s reply, which is attached to the Declaration of Jan E. Eakins in 

support of Defendants’ Administrative Motion dated July 29, 2015, may be filed, and that the 

unredacted version of the same document shall remain sealed. 

The court also grants the tenth sealing motion (ECF No. 229), but this is not be construed to 

“deny a permanent seal on all documents.” Mr. Friedman’s opposition to the tenth sealing motion 

shall be sealed to the same extent that all of the other documents have been sealed. 

Case 3:10-cv-02833-LB Document 230 Filed 08/03/15 Page 2 of 3
3 

ORDER (No. 3:10-cv-02833-LB) 

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 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: August 3, 2015 

______________________________________ 

LAUREL BEELER 

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 3:10-cv-02833-LB Document 230 Filed 08/03/15 Page 3 of 3