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.

Evans v. Arizona Cardinals Football Club, LLC

United States District Court, N.D. California

July 26, 2017

ETOPIA EVANS,, Plaintiffs,
v.
ARIZONA CARDINALS FOOTBALL CLUB, LLC, et al., Defendants. Document Sought to be Sealed Ruling

          ORDER RE ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL

          WILLIAM ALSUP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         On June 27, plaintiffs filed an administrative motion to file under seal portions of and exhibits to their opposition brief to defendants' motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 243). Since the motion relied primarily on confidentiality designations pursuant to the protective order herein, Civil Local Rule 79-5(e) required any supporting declaration “establishing that all of the designated material is sealable” to be filed by July 3. On June 29, an order granted the parties' stipulated request to continue that deadline to July 14 (Dkt. No. 246). As of this order, however, no supporting declaration has been filed. Accordingly, the Court rules as follows:

Document Sought to be Sealed
Ruling

Opposition brief (pages 4-5, 13-15)

No supporting declaration justifying sealing.

Denied.

Exhibit 6 to Sinclair Declaration

No supporting declaration justifying sealing.

Denied.

Exhibit 7 to Sinclair Declaration

No supporting declaration justifying sealing.

Denied.

Exhibit 8 to Sinclair Declaration

No supporting declaration justifying sealing.

Denied.

Exhibit 9 to Sinclair Declaration

No supporting declaration justifying sealing.

Denied.

Exhibit 10 to Sinclair Declaration

No supporting declaration justifying sealing.

Denied.

Exhibit 11 to Sinclair Declaration

No supporting declaration justifying sealing.

Denied.

Exhibit 13 to Sinclair Declaration (pages 129, 308)

Plaintiffs seek to seal these pages because “they contain information obtained from documents or testimony that Plaintiffs have marked confidential subject to the Protective Order” (Dkt. No. 243-1 ¶ 4). Under Civil Local Rule 79-5(d)(1)(A), “Reference to a stipulation or protective order that allows a party to designate certain documents as confidential is not sufficient to establish that a document, or portions thereof, are sealable.” Denied.

Exhibit 14 to Sinclair Declaration (page 11)

Plaintiffs seek to seal this page because “it contains personal identifying information that, while not required to be redacted under the Federal Rules, the parties have nonetheless agreed to redact” (Dkt. No. 243-1 ¶ 5). Specifically, plaintiffs seek to redact only line 20 of page 11, which reveals only the home address of a physician deponent (see Dkt. No. 243-20). Compelling reasons warrant sealing of this information due to its irrelevance to the merits and the high visibility of this case. Granted.

Exhibit 16 to Sinclair Declaration

No supporting declaration justifying sealing.

Denied.

         Plaintiff shall file public versions of the foregoing documents in full compliance ...


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.