Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-02988/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-02988-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

JEAN MACDONALD, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

FORD MOTOR COMPANY,

Defendant.

Case No. 13-cv-02988-JST 

ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFFS’

REPLY BRIEF

Re: ECF No. 76

On August 27, 2015, Plaintiffs’ filed their Reply to Defendant’s Opposition to their Motion 

for Attorneys’ Fees. ECF No. 76. The reply brief contains redactions but does not generally 

comply with Civil Local Rule 79-5 or this Court’s Standing Order Governing Administrative 

Motions to File Under Seal (cand.uscourts.gov/jstorders). The brief was not accompanied by an 

administrative motion to file under seal or an unredacted version of the brief that indicates the 

portions of the document that have been omitted from the redacted version. See L.R. 79-

5(d)(1)(D). 

The Court will not consider the redacted reply brief, ECF No. 76, and directs Plaintiffs to 

re-submit the brief and exhibits after consulting the Civil Local Rules and the Standing Order. If 

Plaintiffs seek to redact information previously sealed by this Court, parties still bear the burden of 

establishing that the material is sealable. 

Dated: August 28, 2015

______________________________________

JON S. TIGAR

United States District Judge

Case 3:13-cv-02988-JST Document 77 Filed 08/28/15 Page 1 of 1