Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-03504/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-03504-18/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Fraud

---

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

CHRISTOPHER CORCORAN, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CVS HEALTH, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.15-cv-03504-YGR (JSC)

ORDER RECONSIDERING 

DECEMBER 9 DISCOVERY ORDER

Re: Dkt. No. 202

This matter has been referred to the undersigned magistrate judge for resolution of 

discovery disputes between the parties. On December 9, 2016 the Court issued an Order 

addressing the parties’ joint letter brief regarding Plaintiffs’ request to compel a further 30(b)(6) 

deposition and addressing the parties’ administrative motion to file certain documents submitted in 

connection with the joint letter brief under seal. (Dkt. No. 201.) The Court, in relevant part, 

denied the request to seal on the grounds that CVS had not submitted a Rule 79-5 declaration 

attesting to the confidential information in the designated document and ordered Plaintiffs to file 

Exhibits K and L to the joint letter brief on the public docket. (Id. at 10.) Now before the Court is 

CVS’s request for relief from the portion of that Order denying the sealing request. (Dkt. No. 

202.) Specifically, CVS notes that it did, in fact, submit a Rule 79-5 declaration in which CVS 

employee Thomas Moffatt averred that Exhibits K and L are letters from CVS’s counsel to 

Plaintiffs’ counsel that contain confidential business information relating to CVS’s internal 

business operations and proprietary information and that disclosure could cause competitive harm 

to CVS. (See id. at 2; see Dkt. No. 190 ¶ 7.) The Moffatt Declaration also adequately explains 

grounds for limited redactions to other exhibits filed in support of the joint letter brief. (See Dkt. 

No. 190 ¶¶ 4-5.) 

Case 4:15-cv-03504-YGR Document 203 Filed 12/13/16 Page 1 of 2
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

The Court will sua sponte reconsider the December 9 Order. See United States v. Smith, 

389 F.3d 944, 949 (9th Cir. 2004) (holding that a district court may sua sponte reconsider a prior, 

interlocutory ruling over which it has continuing jurisdiction); N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 7-9(a) 

(providing that failure to consider material facts is grounds for reconsideration); see, e.g., United 

Tactical Sys. v. Real Action Paintball, Inc., No. 14-cv-04050-MEJ, 2015 WL 295584, at *2 (N.D. 

Cal. Jan. 21, 2015) (sua sponte reconsidering denial of motion to file under seal). In light of 

CVS’s Rule 79-5 declaration, which adequately sets forth the confidential nature of the exhibits, 

the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ administrative motion to file under seal.

This Order terminates Docket No. 202.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 13, 2016

JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:15-cv-03504-YGR Document 203 Filed 12/13/16 Page 2 of 2