Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-03894/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-03894-2/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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID SOWARD, et al.,

Petitioners,

 v.

LEONARD BOSACK, et al.,

Respondents /

No. 07-3894 MMC 

ORDER DENYING RESPONDENTS’

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE

UNDER SEAL DOCUMENT;

DIRECTIONS TO RESPONDENTS

Before the Court is respondents’ administrative motion, filed August 31, 2007, for

leave to file under seal Exhibit D to the Declaration of Daniel H. Bromberg in Support of

Cross-Motion to Stay/Transfer. Respondents represent that said exhibit was designated as

confidential by petitioner in the course of an arbitration proceeding.

Under the Local Rules of this District, where a party seeks to file under seal any

material designated as confidential by another party, the submitting party must file a motion

for a sealing order. See Civil L.R. 79-5(d). “Within five 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.” Id. “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.” Id.

Case 3:07-cv-03894-MMC Document 37 Filed 09/20/07 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

Here, the designating party, petitioners, have not filed a responsive declaration

within the time provided under Civil Local Rule 79-5(d).

Accordingly, respondents administrative motion is hereby DENIED. If respondents

wish the Court to consider Exhibit D, respondents shall file said exhibit in the public record

no later than September 25, 2007.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 20, 2007 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-03894-MMC Document 37 Filed 09/20/07 Page 2 of 2