Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-02904/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-02904-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 371
Nature of Suit: Truth in Lending
Cause of Action: 15:1601 Truth in Lending

---

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

LATASHA MCLAUGHLIN, on behalf of

herself and all others similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

 v.

 WELLS FARGO BANK, NA,

Defendant. /

No. C 15-02904 WHA

ORDER GRANTING IN PART

AND DENYING IN PART

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO

FILE UNDER SEAL

Plaintiff Latasha McLaughlin has filed an administrative motion to file under seal

portions of her memorandum and exhibits in support of her motion for class certification. The

portions sought to be sealed contain confidential financial and propriety information and had

been designated as highly confidential under the parties’ protective order. In response,

defendant Wells Fargo submitted a detailed declaration in support of the motion to seal. 

“Those who seek to maintain the secrecy of documents attached to dispositive motions

must meet the high threshold of showing that compelling reasons support secrecy. A good cause

showing under Rule 26(c) will suffice to keep sealed records attached to non-dispositive

motions.” Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1180 (9th Cir. 2006). 

Motions for class certification are non-dispositive motions and thus parties seeking to seal

portions of them must meet the good cause standard. 

Here, the administrative motion to seal is GRANTED IN PART. Exhibits L–P of the

Insley-Pruitt declaration contain personal financial information of putative class members and

Case 3:15-cv-02904-WHA Document 60 Filed 02/01/16 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

shall remain sealed. Exhibits A–I and K of the Leo declaration shall be redacted as proposed in

defendant’s response to the administrative motion to file under seal. The portions of plaintiff’s

memorandum identified in the motion to seal shall also be redacted as proposed. The motion to

seal exhibits J and Q to the Insley-Pruitt declaration is DENIED, as defendant concedes that these

exhibits do not contain highly confidential information. 

By NOON ON FEBRUARY 5, 2016, plaintiff shall re-file and submit to the Court a redacted

version of her motion for class certification, along with the redacted exhibits in accordance with

this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 1, 2016. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:15-cv-02904-WHA Document 60 Filed 02/01/16 Page 2 of 2