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.

Derek Kerr v. the City and County of San Francisco; Mitchell H. Katz; Mivic Hirose; and Colleen Riley

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


July 11, 2012

DEREK KERR, PLAINTIFF,
v.
THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO; MITCHELL H. KATZ; MIVIC HIROSE; AND COLLEEN RILEY, DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Claudia Wilken United States District Judge

ORDER REGARDING MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL (Docket No. 47)

On May 31, 2012, Defendants City and County of San Francisco, Mitchell H. Katz, Mivic Hirose and Colleen Riley filed a motion to 13 file under seal Exhibit A to the second declaration of Jonathan 14 Rolnick in support of their motion for summary judgment. Docket 15 No. 47. Defendants represent that Plaintiff has designated 16 Exhibit A as confidential under the protective order in this case. 17 Rolnick Decl. in Supp. of Mot. to Seal ¶ 2. 18

If a party wishes to file a document that has been designated 19 confidential by another party, the submitting party must file and 20 serve an Administrative Motion for a sealing order. Civil Local 21 Rule 79-5(d). Within seven days after the administrative motion 22 is filed, the designating party must file a declaration 23 establishing that the information is sealable. Id. If the 24 designating party does not file its responsive declaration, the 25 document or proposed filing will be made part of the public 26 record. Id. 27

Because Exhibit A is connected to a dispositive motion, to 28 establish that it is sealable, Plaintiff "must overcome a strong presumption of access by showing that 'compelling reasons 2 supported by specific factual findings . . . outweigh the 3 general history of access and the public policies favoring 4 disclosure.'" Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass'n, 605 F.3d 665, 679 5 (9th Cir. 2010) (citation omitted). This cannot be established 6 simply by showing that the document is subject to a protective 7 order or by stating in general terms that the material is 8 considered to be confidential, but rather must be supported by a 9 sworn declaration demonstrating with particularity the need to 10 file each document under seal. Civil Local Rule 79-5(a). 11

As of the date of this Order, Plaintiff has not filed a 12 declaration establishing that Exhibit A is sealable. The Court 13 grants Plaintiff seven days from the date of this Order to file 14 such a declaration. If Plaintiff fails to do so, Exhibit A will 15 be made part of the public record. 16

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20120711

© 1992-2012 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.