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 DENYING MOTIONS TO SEAL AND ORDERING RE- SUBMISSION (re: dkt #: 193, 200, 203, 204, 207)
This case involves highly sensitive and confidential information about a minor.
Accordingly, the Court has previously ordered the parties to follow the procedure in the local rules 19 for filing documents under seal. See ECF No. 72. Before the Court are the following unopposed 20 administrative motions to file certain documents under seal: 21
(1) Respondents' Motion for Administrative Relief to File Certain Documents Under Seal, filed 22 September 28, 2011, ECF No. 193 ("First Motion");
(2) Petitioner's Motion to File Portions of Petitioner's Motion for Summary Judgment Under 24 Seal, filed September 30, 2011, ECF No. 200 ("Second Motion");
(3) Respondents' Motion for Administrative Relief to File Redacted Versions of Certain 26 Documents Under Seal, filed October 12, 2011, ECF No. 203 ("Third Motion");
(4) Petitioner's Administrative Motion to Seal Portions of Petitioner's Opposition to 2 Respondents' Motion for Summary Judgment, filed October 12, 2011, ECF No. 204 ("Fourth Motion"); and
(5) Petitioner's Administrative Motion to Seal Portions of Petitioner's Reply Brief in Support 5 8 concerning the minor, but notes various deficiencies in the parties' proposed redactions. For 9 example, in the Third Motion, Respondents seek to file under seal portions of the Declaration of 10 Judgment, including a transcript of the CALICO interview of the minor. See ECF No. 203.
However, in the proposed redacted version lodged with the Court, Respondents fail throughout the 13 transcript to redact the minor's name. Similar problems pervade the proposed redacted versions of 14 documents submitted in connection with Respondents' Memorandum of Points and Authorities in 15 Court accompanying the First Motion.*fn1 See, e.g., Fuchs Decl. Exs. B, C (using minor's first name 17 throughout). The minor's name, both first and last, must be redacted from all documents publicly 18 filed in this case. 19
On the other hand, the Court finds many of Petitioner's proposed redactions overbroad. For 20 example, in the Second Motion, Petitioner seeks to file excerpts from the deposition of Petitioner 21 entirely under seal. Having reviewed the exhibits Petitioner seeks to seal, the Court does not find 22 Respondents' Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Summary Judgment or in the 24 Alternative Partial Summary Judgment, as well as proposed redacted versions of accompanying declarations and exhibits attached thereto, such redacted documents do not correspond with any 25 administrative motion filed with the Court. In a footnote in the First Motion, Respondents allude to having concurrently filed another administrative motion seeking leave to redact certain documents; 26 however, the Court never received said administrative motion. Furthermore, Respondents failed to lodge with the Court unredacted versions of these documents highlighting or otherwise clearly 27 identifying the portions of the text to be redacted, as they are required to do by Civil Local Rule 28 79-5(c).
of Summary Judgment, filed October 18, 2011, ECF No. 207 ("Fifth Motion").
The Court appreciates the parties' efforts to maintain the confidentiality of sensitive matters Mary Ellyn Gormley in Support of Respondents' Opposition to Petitioner's Motion for Summary Support of Summary Judgment or in the Alternative Partial Summary Judgment, lodged with the 16
good cause to seal the entire deposition transcript, as opposed to portions thereof in which the 2 deponent discusses highly sensitive and confidential matters. Similarly, Petitioner's proposed 3 redactions of its Memorandum of ...