Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-04297/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-04297-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

BENJAMIN D. WINIG,

Plaintiff,

 v.

CINGULAR WIRELESS LLC,

Defendant.

 /

No. C-06-4297 MMC

ORDER GRANTING IN PART, DENYING

IN PART, AND IN PART DEFERRING

RULING ON DEFENDANT’S

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE

MEMORANDUM AND DOCUMENTS

UNDER SEAL 

Before the Court is defendant’s Administrative Motion to file under seal defendant’s

Memorandum in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment (“Memorandum”), and Exhibits

A and B to the Declaration of Beth O’Neal Arnese (“Arnese Declaration”), filed in support of

defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Having considered the Administrative Motion

and supporting documents, the Court rules as follows.

1. Defendant asserts that Exhibit A to the Arnese Declaration, specifically, the

transcript of plaintiff’s February 4, 2008 deposition, was designated as confidential by

plaintiff. Plaintiff, however, has failed to file, within five days of the filing of defendant’s

Administrative Motion, “a declaration establishing that the designated information is

sealable.” See Civil L.R. 79-5(d) (providing that, if the designating party does not file, within

five days of filing of motion for sealing order, “a declaration establishing that the 

Case 3:06-cv-04297-MMC Document 107 Filed 07/03/08 Page 1 of 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

2

designated information is sealable,” the proposed filings “will be made part of the public

record”). Accordingly, the Administrative Motion is hereby DENIED to the extent it seeks

the filing of such document under seal. Defendant is hereby DIRECTED to file in the public

record, no later than July 8, 2008, Exhibit A to the Arnese Declaration. If defendant fails to

timely file said document in the public record, the Court will not consider it in ruling on

defendant’s motion for summary judgment.

2. Defendant asserts Exhibit B to the Arnese Declaration, specifically, the

Declaration of Jason Dukes filed in support of defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment,

and Exhibits A through C thereto, are properly filed under seal for the reason that the

documents “quote from and discuss the customer service call notes that were made in

connection with [plaintiff’s] Cingular account.” (See Admin. Mot. at 2:17-19.) Exhibit A to

the Declaration of Jason Dukes consists of a copy of the customer service call notes made

in connection with plaintiff’s account, and Exhibits B and C thereto consist of invoices for

plaintiff’s account for the periods from August 4, 2005 to September 3, 2005 and

September 4, 2005 to October 3, 2005, respectively. 

Defendant has failed to establish that the entirety of the Declaration of Jason Dukes,

and Exhibit A thereto, is “privileged or protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to

protection under the law.” See Civil L.R. 79-5(a). Indeed, the only apparently confidential

item contained in either of said documents is plaintiff’s wireless number, which number

appears several times in Exhibit A. Such information can be easily redacted, and neither

party asserts the presence of plaintiff’s wireless number on the customer service call notes

has any significance with respect to defendant’s motion for summary judgment.

Accordingly, the Administrative Motion is hereby DENIED to the extent it seeks the filing of

such documents under seal. Defendant is hereby DIRECTED to file in the public record, no

later than July 8, 2008, the Declaration of Jason Dukes and a version of Exhibit A thereto,

in which plaintiff’s wireless number is redacted. If defendant fails to timely file said

documents in the public record, the Court will not consider them in ruling on defendant’s

Case 3:06-cv-04297-MMC Document 107 Filed 07/03/08 Page 2 of 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

1

 In the event defendant is of the view that the wireless number has some bearing on

the resolution of its Motion for Summary Judgment, defendant, in lieu of filing Exhibit A in

the public record, may file a supplemental declaration, no later than July 8, 2008, explaining

such significance and seeking to file an unredacted version of the exhibit under seal.

2

 This example is provided for illustrative purposes only, and is not intended to set

forth all of the material that appears to be of a nonconfidential nature.

3

motion for summary judgment.1

Exhibits B and C to the Declaration of Jason Dukes contain plaintiff’s account

number, wireless telephone number, and a listing of each of the calls made and received

by plaintiff during the period covered by the invoice, which information is entitled to

protection from public dissemination. Accordingly, the Administrative Motion is hereby

GRANTED to the extent it seeks the filing of said exhibits under seal, and the Clerk is

directed to file under seal unredacted versions of said exhibits.

3. With respect to the Memorandum, defendant has not shown the entirety of such

document is confidential, and portions thereof plainly are not. (See, e.g., Def.’s “Brief in

Support of Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, or, in the Alternative, Partial

Summary Judgment” at 1:14-25 (discussing plaintiff’s allegations in the complaint).)2

 A

party may not designate an entire document as confidential when only part of the document

contains confidential information. See Civil L.R. 79-5(a) (providing request to file document

under seal “must be narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material”). 

Accordingly, the Court will defer ruling on the motion with respect to the Memorandum, to

afford defendant the opportunity to file, no later than July 8, 2008, a supplemental

declaration identifying with particularity the portions thereof that defendant claims are

subject to sealing and the reason(s) therefor.

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, defendant’s Administrative Motion is

hereby GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, and further ruling thereon is DEFERRED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 3, 2008 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-04297-MMC Document 107 Filed 07/03/08 Page 3 of 3