Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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

Corcoran v. CVS Health

United States District Court, N.D. California

July 7, 2017

Christopher Corcoran, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
CVS Health, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER DIRECTING FURTHER SUBMISSION IN SUPPORT OF ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL DKT. NOS. 281, 286, 300, 314

          YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE.

         Defendants have filed Administrative Motions to File Under Seal at Docket Numbers 281, 286, 300, and 314.

         The motions do not comply with the requirements of Civil Local Rule 79-5 and/or this Court's Standing Order In Civil Cases, paragraph 11, with respect to portions related to plaintiffs' personal information as follows:

         ___ seeks to remove a document from the record without making a motion to file under seal an unredacted version of the document;

         ___ does not include a declaration establishing that the documents sought to be filed under seal, or portions thereof, are sealable under the standard appropriate to the underlying motion. Reference to a stipulation or protective order that allows a party to designate certain documents as confidential is not sufficient to establish that documents, or portions thereof, are sealable. See Civ. L. R. 79-5(d)(1)(A); Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass'n, 565 F.3d 1106, 1115-16 (9th Cir. 2009); Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir.2006).

         ___ does not include proposed order that is narrowly tailored to seal only the sealable material, and which lists in table format each document or portion thereof that is sought to be sealed. See Civ. L. R. 79-5(d)(1)(B).

         ___ does not include a proposed order that conforms to this Court's Standing Order in Civil Cases, paragraph 11 (as set forth in Appendix A to this Order).

         ___ does not include redacted version of the document that is sought to be filed under seal or indicate that the submitting party is seeking to file the entire document under seal. See Civ. L. R. 79-5(d)(1)(C).

         ___ does not include an unredacted version of the document sought to be filed under seal which indicates, by highlighting or other clear method, the portions of the document that have been omitted from the redacted version. See Civ. L. R. 79-5(d)(1)(D).

         X no timely declaration from the Designating Party establishing that all of the designated material is sealable, with regards to Docket Numbers 300 and 314. See Civ. L. R. 79-5(e)(1) (declaration must be provided within four (4) days of filing of the motion).

         ___ supporting declarations submitted by Designating Party do not clearly indicate whether they support the motion to seal in whole or in part, with regards to Docket Numbers 170, 205, 208. See Standing Order in Civil Cases, paragraph 11.

         X do not include an updated proposed order reflecting only those portions for which a declaration establishing a basis for sealing has been submitted after the time has passed for the Designating Party to file its declaration under Civ. L. R. 79-5(e)(1) that conforms with this Court's Standing Order in Civil Cases, paragraph 11, with regards to Docket Numbers 281, 286, 300, and 314.

         ORDER

         Plaintiffs are directed to file supplemental documents to cure the defects identified above no later than Wednesday, July 12, 2017. Failure to do so may ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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