Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-04911/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-04911-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1446 Petition for Removal

---

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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ex rel.

JAYDEEN VICENTE and JAYDEEN

VICENTE, Individually,

Relator,

 v.

ELI LILLY AND CO.,

Defendant. /

No. C 07-04911 CRB

ORDER

Now pending before the Court is defendant’s ex parte motion to place under seal

certain documents attached to the Complaint. Civil Local Rule 79-5(a) provides that 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.” “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.” Id.

Defendant’s motion is DENIED without prejudice to defendant renewing its motion

and actually making the showing required by the Local Rule. Defendant has not submitted

any evidence that establishes that the particular documents attached to the Complaint that it

seeks to seal are confidential. Defendant must offer evidence as to what the documents are

and why they are confidential; simply asserting that the documents are the same or similar to

Case 3:07-cv-04911-CRB Document 37 Filed 10/22/07 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

G:\CRBALL\2007\4911\orderreseal1.wpd 2

documents covered by a protective order in another case in another court does not meet

defendant’s burden. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 22, 2007 

CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:07-cv-04911-CRB Document 37 Filed 10/22/07 Page 2 of 2