Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-04406/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-04406-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

FIREMAN’S FUND INSURANCE,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

GENERAL REINSURANCE CORP.,

Defendant(s).

___________________________________/

No. C-03-4406 JCS

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION THAT COURT DESIGNATE

“FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS,”

JUDGMENT, AND ORDER DENYING

MOTION TO AMEND AS “NOT FOR

CITATION” [Docket No. 125]

On February 15, 2006, Defendant’s filed a Motion That Court Designate “Findings &

Conclusions,” Judgment, And Order Denying Motion To Amend (collectively the “Order”) As

“NOT FOR CITATION” (the “Motion”). The Court finds that the Motion is appropriate for

disposition without oral argument.

DISCUSSION

The Local Rules of this Court authorize a judge to designate his or her orders as “not for

citation.” Civil L.R. 7-14. The decision on whether or not to cause an order to be so designated has

some of the characteristics of a request by a litigant to vacate an order following settlement. See,

e.g., Indep. Union of Flight Attendants v. Pan Am. World Airways, Inc., 810 F.Supp. 263, 265 (N.D.

Cal. 1992) (Conti, J.) Accordingly, this Court weighs the interest of the litigants against the public

interest in finality and the maintenance of judicial precedents. 

Here, Defendant asserts that it will be prejudiced in two ways if the Order is not designated

as “NOT FOR CITATION.”

First, Defendant argues that aspects of its business concern communications that are

confidential, privileged, and/or proprietary. However, the Order does not implicate this interest.

Case 3:03-cv-04406-JCS Document 133 Filed 03/10/06 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Second, Defendant asserts that the Court’s ruling “may have economic impact” on the parties

beyond the dispute that was before the Court. While that may or may not be true, it merely amounts

to the assertion that judicial precedents have the effect they are intended to have. This Court’s

decision is intended to be binding on the parties in this case. It may have collateral estoppel effects,

as is appropriate under the law. 

Defendant’s assertions of prejudice are not shared by Plaintiff in this case. Plaintiff correctly

points out, as the Court noted in its review of this matter, that the case law contained very little

guidance in the area and, accordingly, the maintenance of the instant decision as a citable decision is

in the public interest. 

Accordingly, the Court exercises its discretion and DENIES the Motion. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 10, 2006

 

JOSEPH C. SPERO

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:03-cv-04406-JCS Document 133 Filed 03/10/06 Page 2 of 2