Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-02347/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-02347-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 320
Nature of Suit: Assault, Libel, and Slander
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Libel,Assault,Slander

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN DOUGLAS MCKAY,

Plaintiff,

 v.

MICHAEL ANTHONY KNOERZER and

CLYDE & CO. LLP,

Defendants. /

No. C 15-02347 WHA

ORDER DENYING

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO

FILE UNDER SEAL

Defendants moved to file under seal five of fourteen exhibits to a declaration filed in

support of their motion to dismiss, which they claim are subject to an arbitrator’s confidentiality

order. Defendants’ motion was not accompanied by a stipulation in support of the motion or a

declaration explaining why no stipulation could be obtained, as required by Civil L.R. 7-11(a). 

Plaintiff avers that defendants never contacted him concerning a stipulation in connection with

this motion. Defendants also filed all fourteen attachments, rather than just the five at issue,

under seal on ECF and PACER, so plaintiff was unable to view any of them. Plaintiff also notes

that defendants have not served him with copies of the attachments to this motion, although that

is not required for e-filed motions. Additionally, defendants’ memorandum in support of their

motion to dismiss included details and direct quotes from several of the documents sought to be

sealed, which were not redacted in that document.

Case 3:15-cv-02347-WHA Document 16 Filed 07/07/15 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

Due to these deficiencies, plaintiff has been unable to identify or review several of the

documents submitted in support of defendants’ motion to dismiss, some of which were

undisputably not subject to the confidentiality order. For these reasons, defendants’ motion to

file under seal is DENIED. Defendants shall re-file unredacted versions of any documents they

intend to rely on in support of their motion to dismiss by JULY 9 AT NOON.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 7, 2015. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:15-cv-02347-WHA Document 16 Filed 07/07/15 Page 2 of 2