Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-04088/USCOURTS-cand-4_04-cv-04088-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 850
Nature of Suit: Securities, Commodities, Exchange
Cause of Action: 15:78m(a) Securities Exchange Act

---

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE

COMMISSION, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

JEREMY R. LENT, et al.,

Defendants.

___________________________________/

No. C-04-4088 CW (EMC)

ORDER PROVISIONALLY GRANTING

DEFENDANTS' REQUEST TO FILE

DECLARATIONS UNDER SEAL 

(Docket Nos. 128, 134)

Defendants Bruce Rigione and Jeremy Lent each have filed a request that certain documents

in support of Lent's Motion to Compel the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (the "OCC") to

Produce Subpoenaed Documents (docket no. 101) be filed under seal. 

Civil Local Rule 79-5(a) provides that 

[n]o document shall be filed under seal, i.e., closed to inspection by

the public, except pursuant to a Court order that authorizes the sealing

of the particular document, or portions thereof. A sealing order may

issue only upon a request that establishes that the document, or

portions thereof, is privileged or protectable as a trade secret or

otherwise entitled to protection under the law, [hereinafter referred to

as 'sealable.'] The request must be narrowly tailored to seek sealing

only of sealable material, and must conform with Civil L.R. 79-5(b) or

(c). A stipulation, or a blanket protective order that allows a party to

designate documents as sealable, will not suffice to allow the filing of

documents under seal. Ordinarily, more than one copy of a particular

document should not be submitted for filing under seal in a case.

Civil L.R. 79-5(a).

Case 4:04-cv-04088-CW Document 140 Filed 01/04/06 Page 1 of 3
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

Upon hearing oral argument of counsel on the motion to compel, the Court granted leave to

file supplemental documentation in support of that motion. Defendants Rigione, Lent and Wachtel

filed declarations relating to the OCC's examination of NextBank and certain statements made by

OCC examiners. Based on the Court’s review of the documents at issue, the Court finds that the

declarations of Rigione, Lent and Wachtel contain information relating to an issue that is currently

under submission, namely, whether the OCC's communications with Defendants are subject to the

bank examination privilege. Because there is a colorable claim of privilege attached to these

documents, the Court provisionally grants Defendants' request to seal the Rigione and Lent

Declarations, and sua sponte holds that the Wachtel Declaration shall also be filed provisionally

under seal, pending the Court's ruling on the motion to compel.

Nonparties Richard Goebel and Daniel Springer have filed an opposition to Defendants'

applications to file the documents under seal (docket no. 137). Goebel and Springer are not parties

to the instant case, but are plaintiffs in a class action shareholder suit in this District and in suits in

the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware against several of the defendants. (Opp'n at

1; Highman Decl., ¶ 1.) Goebel and Springer contend that they have a strong interest in seeing

documents relating to communications between NextCard and the OCC in order to prove their case

(Highman Decl., ¶¶ 4-6), but offer no basis for standing to oppose Defendants' applications to seal

in the instant case. Cf. Seattle Times Co. v. U.S. District Court, 845 F.2d 1513, 1515 (9th Cir. 1988)

(recognizing standing of newspaper organization to raise First Amendment challenge to sealing of

court records). Furthermore, the appropriate course of action for these nonparties to obtain

documents would be to pursue discovery in their own litigation.

Accordingly, the Court hereby provisionally GRANTS the requests to file under seal and

orders that (1) the Rigione Declaration as Proffer in Support of Defendant Jeremy Lent's Motion to

Compel, and Exhibits A-G thereto; and (2) the Lent Declaration in Support of the Motion to Compel

Production of OCC Documents, and Exhibit 1 thereto, be filed under seal. 

The Court further ORDERS that the Declaration of Defendant Douglas Wachtel in Support

of Defendant Jeremy Lent's Motion to Compel the OCC to Produce Subpoenaed Documents (docket

Case 4:04-cv-04088-CW Document 140 Filed 01/04/06 Page 2 of 3
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

3

no. 133) be withdrawn from the public file and filed under seal, pending the Court's decision on the

motion to compel.

This order disposes of Docket Nos. 128, 134.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 4, 2006

_________________________ EDWARD M. CHEN

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:04-cv-04088-CW Document 140 Filed 01/04/06 Page 3 of 3