The opinion of the court was delivered by: Jennifer L. Thurston United States Magistrate Judge
STIPULATION AND ORDER REGARDING THE FILING OF REDACTED DOCUMENTS AND REQUESTS TO SEAL DOCUMENTS IN CONNECTION WITH PLAINTIFF'S CLASS CERTIFICATION MOTION
1. Plaintiff Candace Casida ("Plaintiff") and Defendants Sears Holdings Corporation and Sears, Roebuck & Co. (collectively, "Sears" or "Defendants") (Plaintiff and Defendants are hereafter referred to as the "Parties"), through their respective counsel of record, agree and stipulate as follows:
2. On May 11, 2012, Plaintiff filed her Motion for Class Certification ("Motion"). In connection with her Motion, Plaintiff lodged with the Court a request to seal certain exhibits to the Declaration of Matthew B. George in Support of Plaintiff's Motion ("George Declaration") that contained documents and deposition testimony Sears had designated as confidential pursuant to the Protective Order entered in this case. Plaintiff also lodged and requested to seal an unredacted copy of her Memorandum of Law in Support of Plaintiff's Motion that contained references and quotations from Sears' confidentially designated documents and testimony. Plaintiff mistakenly filed redacted copies of these documents on the public docket excising the material and references thereto that Sears had designated confidential.
3. The Court denied without prejudice Plaintiff's Request to Seal Documents. [Dkt. # 105] Plaintiff then initiated meet and confer under the Protective Order with Sears regarding the documents that Sears marked as confidential and that Plaintiff submitted in connection with her Motion in order to determine whether any future sealing requests would be necessary, and to obtain Sears' legal and factual basis that would support a sealing request.
4. On June 22, 2012, Sears filed its Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion and submitted two Requests to Seal Documents. The first request asked the Court to seal the documents and deposition testimony provided with the George Declaration that Plaintiff originally lodged with the Court in connection with her Motion. The request did not seek to seal any portion of Plaintiff's Memorandum of Law. The second request asked the Court to seal documents submitted by Sears in connection with its Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion.
5. On June 25, 2012, the Court issued an order granting in part and denying in part Sears' requests to seal documents ("Sealing Order"). [Dkt. # 122] The Court ordered Sears to lodge with the Court copies of the documents to be sealed with the information to be sealed highlighted. Id. at ¶ 2. The Court also ordered Sears to file redacted copies of the sealed documents, which include exhibits to the George Declaration, on the public docket. Id. at ¶ 3. Sears then requested that Plaintiff, rather than Sears, e-file the redacted versions of the George Declaration after Sears prepared the redacted copies.
6. On June 26, 2012, the Parties met and conferred regarding Sears' request and the Court's Sealing Order and discussed the best methods to address any future request to seal documents in connection with Plaintiff's upcoming reply papers in support of her Motion ("Reply").
7. As a result of the meet and confer, the Parties agreed to the following, subject to Court approval, in an effort to lessen the burden on the Parties and the Court in connection with the current and any future sealing requests arising from Plaintiff's Motion:
a. First, Sears will provide Plaintiff with redacted versions of the exhibits to the George Declaration that the Court agreed to seal in its Sealing Order to ensure Sears' designated information is kept confidential and Plaintiff will file redacted versions of these documents on the public docket. The parties contacted the Court's Clerk to obtain preliminary approval to proceed in this fashion.
b. Second, Sears has determined that it does not seek to seal or redact any portion of Plaintiff's Memorandum of Law in Support of Plaintiff's Motion. Accordingly, Sears agrees it does not object to Plaintiff publicly filing an unredacted version this document on the public record.
c. Third, in order to facilitate the proposed sealing of documents, if any, in connection with Plaintiff's Reply papers, Plaintiff shall lodge her Reply papers with the Court but not publicly file them. Sears shall then have seven (7) days to review Plaintiff's Reply papers and make an appropriate request to seal any documents it has designated as confidential that have been lodged by Plaintiff. If no such request is made within seven (7) days, Plaintiff shall file the lodged documents on the public docket within three (3) days thereafter. Under this stipulation, Sears, rather than Plaintiff, will have the burden of moving to seal any documents and testimony submitted by Plaintiff in her ...