Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-05498/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-05498-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Petition for Removal

---

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

FRED NAZIF,

Plaintiff,

v.

COMPUTER SCIENCES CORPORATION,

Defendant.

Case No. 13-cv-05498-EMC (JSC)

ORDER RE: SEALING

Re: Dkt. No. 85

On April 21, 2015 the Court granted Defendant’s motion to preserve confidentiality 

designation of an internal audit report produced during discovery and granted in part the parties’ 

administrative motions to file under seal the briefing on the underlying motion to preserve 

confidentiality. (Dkt. No. 75.) The Court filed the April 21 Order under seal because various 

matters referenced therein were filed under seal in this matter. (Id. at 15.) However, the Court 

noted that it was “not persuaded that anything discussed in th[e] Order is in fact confidential and 

properly sealable” and required Defendant to inform the Court by no later than April 28 what 

information, if any, within the Order must remain sealed. (Id.) With respect to the briefing, the 

Court determined that the parties’ request for sealing was overbroad and ordered Defendant to file 

a statement to inform the Court by no later than April 28 identifying which portions of the briefing 

must remain sealed and why. (Id.)

Defendant has since filed a notice indicating that no portion of the Court’s April 21 Order 

need be sealed. (Dkt. No. 85 at 2.) The Court notes that its Order references the types of 

confidential subjects described in the confidential internal audit report, such as accounting policies 

and customer arrangements, but does not describe details or explain what those policies are or who 

the customer is. Accordingly, the Court orders that the April 21 Order be UNSEALED.

Case 3:13-cv-05498-EMC Document 91 Filed 05/04/15 Page 1 of 4
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

In addition, the Court has reviewed Defendant’s statement identifying those portions of the 

briefing underlying the motion to preserve confidentiality designation that should remain under 

seal. (Dkt. No. 85 at 2-5.) The Court will address the proposed redactions to each motion in turn.

1. Motion to Preserve Confidentiality

Defendant has proposed limited redactions to those portions of the motion to preserve 

confidentiality that actually disclose Defendant’s specific proprietary accounting policies and 

procedures, discussions and proposals for improvements to those policies and procedures, to the 

accounts of particular clients. The Court agrees that almost all of the proposed redactions are 

narrowly tailored to seal only this type of information. Page 12, Lines 6-8 are properly redacted.1 

The next set of redactions, beginning on Page 16, should be more limited. Lines 24 and 25 only 

describe the type of confidential subjects in the Internal Audit report without disclosing the actual 

information. Thus, they need not be sealed. However, lines Page 16, Line 26 through Page 17, 

Line 3 actually identify areas where improvement was suggested, which shall remain under seal 

for the reasons explained in the Court’s April 21 Order.

2. Opposition to Motion to Preserve Confidentiality & Exhibits A-C of LeClerc 

Declaration

Defendant seeks to seal portions of the opposition that disclose discussions, assessments, 

and suggestions for improvements to Defendant’s internal accounting policies and practices or 

quote directly from the recommendation section of the Internal Audit Report. The Court agrees 

that such information should be redacted, but concludes that some of Defendant’s proposed 

redactions are overbroad, seeking to seal sentences that do not disclose such information, but 

merely reference the subject matter—i.e., “recommendations for improvement”—or contain 

argument regarding the same. Based on its review of Defendant’s proposed redactions, the Court 

concludes that Page 10’s redactions should be limited to Lines 8-9 and 21-22. Page 11’s 

redactions should be limited to Lines 21-24 and Line 27 after the word “information.” Page 12, 

 

1 With the exception of the portions described above, the below portions to seal are the same as 

those that Defendant proposed. However, for ease of identification, where the page numbers 

differ, the Court lists the page number that the electronic filing system assigned at the top of each 

page, not the page number the party included at the bottom.

Case 3:13-cv-05498-EMC Document 91 Filed 05/04/15 Page 2 of 4
3

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

Line 1 shall be redacted before the word “[c]onsequently.” 

In addition, Defendant seeks to seal in their entirety Exhibits A, B, and C of the LeClerc 

Declaration “[t]o the extent . . . [they] contain redacted and/or unredacted copies of the IA 

Report[.]” (Dkt. No. 85 at 4.) Defendant did not identify by page number the portion it contends

should remain under seal. Based on the Court’s review, the copies of the report itself shall remain 

under seal, but emails to which it was attached shall not; thus, the email portions of Exhibits A 

through C, in which counsel state their positions regarding sealing but do not disclose confidential 

information (see Dkt. No. 58-5 at 5-6; Dkt. No. 58-5 at 21; Dkt. No. 58-6 at 2) shall be filed on the 

public docket, but the remaining portion of Exhibits A, B, and C shall remain under seal. 

3. Reply in Support of Motion to Preserve Confidentiality

Finally, Defendant’s statement identifies portions of the reply that, it argues, should remain 

under seal because it discloses one of Defendant’s proprietary software products and provides 

details of Defendant’s accounting policies and practices. Only the parentheticals on Page 3, Line 

25, and Page 4, Lines 4-6 shall remain under seal. In addition, Defendant contends that Page 9, 

Lines 9-11 should remain under seal because it discloses discussion, assessment, and suggestions 

for improvement to Defendant’s internal accounting policies and practices. The Court agrees.

* * *

Accordingly, the following portions of the briefing underlying the motion to preserve 

confidentiality designation shall remain under seal:

Document Portions to Seal

Motion to Preserve Confidentiality 

(Dkt. No. 52-3)

Page 12, Lines 6-8

Page 16, Line 26 

Page 17, Lines 1-3

Opposition to Motion to Preserve 

Confidentiality (Dkt. No. 58-4)

Page 10, Line 7-8, 21-22

Page 11, Lines 21-24, Line 27 after 

the word “information”

Page 12, Line 1 up to the word 

“[c]onsequently”

Case 3:13-cv-05498-EMC Document 91 Filed 05/04/15 Page 3 of 4
4

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

Exhibits A, B and C Declaration of 

Chris LeClerc in support of 

Opposition to Motion to Preserve 

Confidentiality (Dkt. Nos. 58-5 & 

58-6)

Dkt. No. 58-5 at 7-20, 22-34

Dkt. No. 58-6 at 3-15

Reply in support of Motion to 

Preserve Confidentiality (Dkt. No. 

60-3)

Page 3, Line 25

Page 4, Lines 4-6

Page 9, Line 9-11

The parties shall file redacted versions of their briefing consistent with this Order by no 

later than May 8, 2015.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 4, 2015

________________________

JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:13-cv-05498-EMC Document 91 Filed 05/04/15 Page 4 of 4