Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04312/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04312-9/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Conseco Health Insurance Company
Defendant
Anita D. Paratley
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

ANITA D. PARATLEY,

Plaintiff,

 v.

CONSECO HEALTH INSURANCE

COMPANY,

Defendant /

No. C-05-4312 MMC

ORDER VACATING HEARING ON

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO FILE PARTIAL

SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION

UNDER SEAL; AFFORDING

DEFENDANTS OPPORTUNITY TO

COMPLY WITH CIVIL LOCAL RULE 79-

5(d)

Before the Court is plaintiff Anita D. Paratley’s Motion to File Partial Summary

Judgment Motion Under Seal, filed October 13, 2006 and noticed for hearing November 17,

2006, the date on which plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment is scheduled to be

heard.

According to plaintiff’s motion to file under seal, defendants have designated as

confidential certain exhibits plaintiff offers in support of her motion for partial summary

judgment. The Civil Local Rules of this District, however, provide that where, as here, a

party seeks to file under seal any material designated as confidential by another party, the

motion for a sealing order shall not be noticed for hearing on the ordinary 35-day schedule;

rather, the Local Rules provide that within five days of the filing of such motion to seal, “the

designating party must file with the Court and serve a declaration establishing that the

designated information is sealable, and must lodge and serve a narrowly tailored proposed

Case 3:05-cv-04312-MMC Document 69 Filed 10/26/06 Page 1 of 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

1

If defendants are of the view that only a portion of the material should be filed under

seal, defendants must, with specificity, identify such portions. Additionally, defendants

must offer “compelling reasons” to justify any sealing request. See Kamakana v. City and

County of Honolulu, 447 F. 3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006) (holding publication of documents

that “may lead to a litigant’s embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further litigation

will not, without more, compel the court to seal its records”).

2

sealing order, or must withdraw the designation of confidentiality.” See Civil L.R. 79-5(d).

Accordingly, the November 17, 2006 hearing on plaintiff’s motion for a sealing order

is hereby VACATED. Should defendants seek to demonstrate the material referenced in

plaintiffs’ motion is sealable, defendants shall file the requisite declaration no later than

November 1, 2006.1

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 26, 2006 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-04312-MMC Document 69 Filed 10/26/06 Page 2 of 2