Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-07171/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-07171-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

JANE SMITH NO. 1, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

CITY OF OAKLAND, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C-06-7171 MMC

ORDER DEFERRING RULING ON

PLAINTIFF’S ADMINISTRATIVE

MOTIONS TO FILE DOCUMENTS

UNDER SEAL; AFFORDING

DEFENDANTS OPPORTUNITY TO FILE

DECLARATION PURSUANT TO CIVIL

LOCAL RULE 79-5(d)

On November 13, 2007, plaintiffs filed their “Motion to Certify Case as a Class

Action.” In connection therewith, plaintiffs filed two administrative motions to file documents

under seal; by the first such motion, plaintiffs seek to file under seal plaintiffs’ motion to

certify and the declaration of plaintiffs’ counsel in support thereof, and by the second such

motion, plaintiffs seek to file under seal plaintiffs’ reply and the declaration of plaintiffs’

counsel in support thereof. Plaintiffs assert such documents “rely heavily” on defendant

City of Oakland Police Department’s personnel files, internal affairs files, and related

documents subject to the parties’ stipulated Protective Order. (See Pls.’ Admin. Mot. to

File Under Seal Pls.’ Mot. to Certify Case as Class Action ¶¶ 2-3.) On January 9, 2008, the

case was reassigned to the undersigned, and on April 17, 2008, plaintiffs re-noticed their

Motion to Certify for hearing on May 23, 2008.

Case 3:06-cv-07171-MMC Document 68 Filed 04/22/08 Page 1 of 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

2

Where, as here, a party seeks to file under seal documents designated as

confidential by another party, “the designating party must file with the Court . . . a

declaration establishing that the designated information is sealable, and must lodge and

serve a narrowly tailored proposed sealing order, or must withdraw the designation of

confidentiality.” See Civil L.R. 79-5(d). In the instant action, defendants have not filed such

a declaration. In light of the recent re-noticing of plaintiffs’ motion to certify, however, the

Court will afford defendants the opportunity to do so.

Accordingly, the Court will defer ruling on plaintiffs’ administrative motions, to afford

defendants the opportunity to file, no later than April 25, 2008, a declaration or declarations

pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5(d). If no such declaration is filed, the proposed filings will

be made part of the public record. See id.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 22, 2008 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-07171-MMC Document 68 Filed 04/22/08 Page 2 of 2