Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-03495/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-03495-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 196
Nature of Suit: Franchise
Cause of Action: 28:1446 Breach of Contract- Insurance

---

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 

ALEJANDRO JUAREZ, MARIA JUAREZ, 

LUIS A. ROMERO and MARIA PORTILLO, 

individually and on behalf of all 

others similarly situated, 

 Plaintiffs, 

 v. 

 

JANI-KING OF CALIFORNIA, INC., a 

Texas corporation, JANI-KING, 

INC., a Texas corporation, JANIKING INTERNATIONAL, INC., a Texas 

corporation, and DOES 1 through 

20, inclusive, 

 

 Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 09-3495 SC 

ORDER RE: DEFENDANT'S 

STATEMENT OF NON-OPPOSITION 

TO PLAINTIFFS' 

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO 

FILE UNDER SEAL 

 Plaintiffs Alejandro Juarez et al. ("Plaintiffs") brought an 

Administrative Motion pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5(d) to file 

under seal certain documents designated as confidential by 

Defendant Jani-King of California, Inc. ("Defendant"). ECF No. 64 

("Motion"). Plaintiffs sought to file these documents in 

connection with its Motion to Certify the Class. ECF No. 52. On 

August 2, 2010, Defendant filed a Statement of Non-Opposition, 

stating it "had no opposition to Plaintiff's Administrative Motion 

to File under Seal Documents in Connection with Plaintiffs' Motion 

for Class Certification." ECF No. 70. 

Case 4:09-cv-03495-YGR Document 71 Filed 08/02/10 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

For the Northern District of California 

 Defendant's Statement of Non-Opposition demonstrates an 

unfamiliarity with or misunderstanding of Civil Local Rule 79-5(d). 

This rule requires a party seeking to file a document designated as 

confidential by another party to file an administrative motion with 

the court. The designating party then has seven days to preserve 

the document's confidentiality by filing and serving a "declaration 

establishing that the designated information is sealable" and "a 

narrowly tailored proposed sealing order." 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. 

 Plaintiffs have sought to file thousands of pages of documents 

that Defendant designated confidential. If Defendant had no 

opposition to these documents being filed under seal, it should 

have filed a responsive declaration within seven days of 

Plaintiffs' Motion. It has not done so. For these reasons, 

Plaintiffs' Administrative Motion to file documents under seal is 

DENIED. Plaintiffs shall publicly e-file the documents. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: August 2, 2010 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:09-cv-03495-YGR Document 71 Filed 08/02/10 Page 2 of 2