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

EDDIE LINDSEY,

Plaintiff,

 v.

UNITED AIRLINES, INC., et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 17-00753 WHA

ORDER APPROVING

STIPULATED PROTECTIVE

ORDER SUBJECT TO 

STATED CONDITIONS

The stipulated protective order submitted by the parties is hereby APPROVED, subject to

the following conditions, including adherence to the Ninth Circuit’s strict caution against

sealing orders (as set out below):

1. The parties must make a good-faith determination that any

information designated “confidential” truly warrants protection under Rule 26(c)

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Designations of material as

“confidential” must be narrowly tailored to include only material for which there

is good cause. A pattern of over-designation may lead to an order un-designating

all or most materials on a wholesale basis.

2. In order to be treated as confidential, any materials filed with the

Court must be lodged with a request for filing under seal in compliance with Civil

Local Rule 79-5. Please limit your requests for sealing to only those narrowly

tailored portions of materials for which good cause to seal exists. Please include 
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

all other portions of your materials in the public file and clearly indicate therein

where material has been redacted and sealed. Each filing requires an

individualized sealing order; blanket prospective authorizations are no longer

allowed by Civil Local Rule 79-5.

3. Chambers copies should include all material — both redacted and

unredacted — so that chambers staff does not have to reassemble the whole brief

or declaration. Although chambers copies should clearly designate which

portions are confidential, chambers copies with confidential materials will be

handled like all other chambers copies of materials without special restriction, and

will typically be recycled, not shredded.

4. In Kamakana v. Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006),

the Ninth Circuit held that more than good cause, indeed, “compelling reasons”

are required to seal documents used in dispositive motions, just as compelling

reasons would be needed to justify a closure of a courtroom during trial. 

Otherwise, the Ninth Circuit held, public access to the work of the courts will be

unduly compromised. Therefore, no request for a sealing order will be allowed

on summary judgment motions (or other dispositive motions) unless the movant

first shows a “compelling reason,” a substantially higher standard than “good

cause.” This will be true regardless of any stipulation by the parties. Counsel are

warned that most summary judgment motions and supporting material should be

completely open to public view. Only social security numbers, names of

juveniles, home addresses and phone numbers, and trade secrets of a compelling

nature (like the recipe for Coca Cola, for example) will qualify. If the courtroom

would not be closed for the information, nor should any summary judgment

proceedings, which are, in effect, a substitute for trial. Motions in limine are also

part of the trial and must likewise be laid bare absent compelling reasons. Please

comply fully. Noncompliant submissions are liable to be stricken in

their entirety. 
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

3

5. Any confidential materials used openly in court hearings or trial

will not be treated in any special manner absent a further order. 

6. This order does not preclude any party from moving to

undesignate information or documents that have been designated as confidential. 

The party seeking to designate material as confidential has the burden of

establishing that the material is entitled to protection.

7. The Court will retain jurisdiction over disputes arising from the

proposed and stipulated protective order for only NINETY DAYS after final

termination of the action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 15, 2017. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE