Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

In Re Wells Fargo Mortgage- Litigation

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION


June 10, 2011

IN RE WELLS FARGO MORTGAGE- LITIGATION

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Lucy H. Koh United States District Judge

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

ORDER REGARDING REQUESTS TO BACKED CERTIFICATES SEAL, DOCKET NUMBERS 400, 405, 422, 430

Regarding various administrative requests to seal information pending in this matter, the Court holds as follows.

Regarding Docket Number 400: Defendants requested sealing of Exhibits 1, 2 and 3 to the Fry Declaration submitted in support of the Wells Fargo Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Dkt. No. 403). Defendants also sought sealing of references to this information in the Motion (Dkt. No. 402). The Underwriter Defendants have submitted a declaration indicating that 21 these exhibits contain confidential transaction records. These documents are therefore sealable in 22 their entirety, and the request to seal Exhibits 1, 2 and 3 to the Fry Declaration (Dkt. No. 403) and 23 to seal unredacted references to this information in Docket Number 402 is hereby GRANTED.

Regarding Docket Number 405: Defendants requested sealing of information designated confidential by the Plaintiffs. Specifically, Defendants requested sealing of Exhibits 6, 7, 8, 9, 14, 16, 18, 20, and 49 to the Rutten Declaration (Dkt. No. 407) submitted in support of Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification, as well as references to this information within Defendants' Opposition. Plaintiffs never submitted a follow-up declaration stating why 2 these documents are properly sealable, as required by Civil Local Rule 79-5(d). This Court issued 3 an Order directing the Plaintiffs to file any such declaration by May 31, 2011 if they wished to 4 maintain confidentiality over this information, but no declaration was filed. See Dkt. No. 421.

(Dkt. No. 407), and references to this information in the Opposition (Dkt. No. 406) is DENIED.

These Exhibits shall be publicly filed and any references to these exhibits shall not be redacted 8 from the public version of Defendants' Opposition. including portions of Exhibits 2 and all of Exhibit 30 to the Rutten Declaration (Dkt. No. 407).

Accordingly, the request to seal Exhibits 6, 7, 8, 9, 14, 16, 18, 20, and 49 to the Rutten Declaration Defendants also sought sealing of documents designated confidential by third parties, The request to seal these documents is GRANTED.

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

Finally, Defendants sought sealing of portions of Exhibits 1 and 2 of the Rutten Declaration (Dkt. No. 407), and references to this information in the Opposition (Dkt. No. 406). Defendants 14 submitted declarations indicating that these exhibits contain confidential information relating to Wells Fargo's business practices, and private customer information. Accordingly, these documents 16 are properly sealable, and Defendants' request to seal Exhibits 1 and 2 of the Rutten Declaration (Dkt. No. 407) and to redact references to this information in the Opposition (Dkt. No. 406) is 18 hereby GRANTED.

Pleadings (Dkt. No. 423). The Underwriter Defendants filed a declaration stating that Exhibit 3 to 22 the DeLange Declaration (Dkt. No. 423) is sealable because it contains confidential trading data at 23 page 110, lines 18-25. Accordingly, only this portion of Ex. 3 to the DeLange Declaration (Dkt. No. 423) may be sealed. Plaintiffs shall prepare a redacted public version removing only those 25 lines of Exhibit 3 and any references to that information in their opposition. In addition, Plaintiffs 26 requested permission to seal information for which Defendants sought sealing in Docket Number 400. Because the Court finds that information sealable, Plaintiffs' request to redact such 28 information from Docket Number 423 is GRANTED.

Regarding Docket Number 422: Plaintiffs requested sealing of information produced by Defendants and referenced in Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Regarding Docket Number 430: Plaintiffs requested sealing of information produced by Defendants. Defendants filed declarations indicating that the only sealable information is in Ex. 25 3 to the DeLange Declaration, page 110, lines 18-25. Plaintiffs shall file a redacted public version of Exhibit 25 redacting only these lines, and any reference to these lines from Plaintiff's Reply Brief (Dkt. No. 431). Because Defendants have indicated that all other documents and information 6 submitted for sealing in Docket Number 430 do not contain confidential information, Plaintiffs' 7 request to seal that information is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

United States District Court For the Northern District of California

20110610

© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.