UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION
May 24, 2011
IN RE WELLS FARGO MORTGAGE-BACKED CERTIFICATES LITIGATION
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Lucy H. Koh United States District Judge
ORDER REGARDING REQUESTS TO SEAL
On May 5, 2011, defendants in this case filed two Administrative Motions to File Under Seal (Dkt. Nos. 400 and 405). In the first-filed motion, Defendant Wells Fargo requests sealing of 17 certain documents that were designated Confidential or Highly Confidential by other defendants (Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC and UBS Securities, LLC). In the second-filed motion, all 19 defendants in this action request sealing of information including some information designated 20 Confidential or Highly Confidential by plaintiffs. As the Court has previously held, pursuant to 21 Local Rule 79-5(d), when a party moves to seal documents designated as sealable by another party, 22 the designating party must file a supporting declaration within 7 days, or the sealing motion will be 23 denied. No supporting declaration was filed by any party in response to either of the sealing 24 motions referenced above.*fn1
If any party objects to the public filing of the documents identified in the above-referenced Administrative Motions to Seal, they shall file a declaration stating the basis for asserting 3 confidentiality of each exhibit defendants seek to seal. This declaration must be filed by May 31, 4 2011. If no declaration is received, the Court will deny the sealing request as to the relevant 5 documents.
The parties are cautioned that designation of documents as Confidential or Highly Confidential under the Protective Order does not make the documents sealable. To be sealed, 8 information must be "privileged or protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection 9 under the law," and the party designating the information as confidential must establish that the 10 information is sealable.
This is the second time that the Court has had to deny a request for sealing due to the failure of a party to submit a supporting declaration. Perhaps the parties designating the information as 13 confidential have withdrawn the designation, and their failure to submit supporting declarations 14 was intentional. If so, the designating parties should file a statement indicating this so that the 15 parties requesting sealing can amend their sealing requests appropriately. If not, however, the Court notes that failure to submit supporting declarations impedes the Court's consideration of 17 sealing requests and burdens the Court.
In the future, if any party fails to timely submit a supporting declaration in response to another party's administrative motion to seal information, the Court will simply deny sealing of 20 information, and it will be made part of the public record per Civil Local Rule 79-5(d).
with highlighting (so that proposed redacted text is visible) rather than with marks completely 23 obscuring the text. This will aid the Court's review of proposed redactions.
In addition, the Court would appreciate if both parties would indicate proposed redactions
IT IS SO ORDERED.