The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
10 INTERACTIVE PLAY DEVICES LLC, No. C 19-00850 WHA
11 Plaintiff,
12 v. ORDER APPROVING
STIPULATED PROTECTIVE
13 WONDER WORKSHOP, INC., ORDER SUBJECT TO
STATED CONDITIONS
14 Defendant.
/
15
16 The stipulated protective order submitted by the parties is hereby APPROVED, subject to
17 the following conditions, including adherence to the Ninth Circuit’s strict caution against
18 sealing orders (as set out below):
19 1. The parties must make a good-faith determination that any
20 information designated “confidential” truly warrants protection under Rule 26(c)
21 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Designations of material as
22 “confidential” must be narrowly tailored to include only material for which there
23 is good cause. A pattern of over-designation may lead to an order un-designating
24 all or most materials on a wholesale basis.
25 2. In order to be treated as confidential, any materials filed with the
26 Court must be lodged with a request for filing under seal in compliance with Civil
27 Local Rule 79-5. Please limit your requests for sealing to only those narrowly
28 tailored portions of materials for which good cause to seal exists. Please include
1 all other portions of your materials in the public file and clearly indicate therein
2 where material has been redacted and sealed. Each filing requires an
3 individualized sealing order; blanket prospective authorizations are no longer
4 allowed by Civil Local Rule 79-5.
5 3. In addition to the requirements of Civil Local Rule 79-5 and other
6 governing law, only for the most compelling reason will the Court grant any
7 sealing request covering information that relates to potential hazards to the health,
8 safety, or well-being of the public. Therefore, when anyone seeks to seal or
9 redact anything filed with the Court, the request must specifically draw attention
10 to any proposed sealing or redaction of information that implicates such issues.
11 4. Chambers copies should include all material — both redacted and
12 unredacted — so that chambers staff does not have to reassemble the whole brief
13 or declaration. Although chambers copies should clearly designate which
14 portions are confidential, chambers copies with confidential materials will be
15 handled like all other chambers copies of materials without special restriction, and
16 will typically be recycled, not shredded.
17 4. In Kamakana v. Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006),
18 the Ninth Circuit held that more than good cause, indeed, “compelling reasons”
19 are required to seal documents used in dispositive motions, just as compelling
20 reasons would be needed to justify a closure of a courtroom during trial.
21 Otherwise, the Ninth Circuit held, public access to the work of the courts will be
22 unduly compromised. Therefore, no request for a sealing order will be allowed
23 on summary judgment motions (or other dispositive motions) unless the movant
24 first shows a “compelling reason,” a substantially higher standard than “good
25 cause.” This will be true regardless of any stipulation by the parties. Counsel are
26 warned that most summary judgment motions and supporting material should be
27 completely open to public view. Only social security numbers, names of
28 juveniles, home addresses and phone numbers, and trade secrets of a compelling
] nature (like the recipe for Coca Cola, for example) will qualify. Ifthe courtroom
2 would not be closed for the information, nor should any summary judgment
3 proceedings, which are, in effect, a substitute for trial. Motions in limine are also
4 part of the trial and must likewise be laid bare absent compelling reasons. Please
5 comply fully. Noncompliant submissions are liable to be stricken in
6 their entirety.
7 5. Any confidential materials used openly in court hearings or trial
8 will not be treated in any special manner absent a further order.
9 6. This order does not preclude any party from moving to
10 undesignate information or documents that have been designated as confidential.
11 The party seeking to designate material as confidential has the burden of
E 12 establishing that the material is entitled to protection.
5 13 7. The Court will retain jurisdiction over disputes arising from the
5 14 proposed and stipulated protective order for only NINETY DAYS after final
5 15 termination of the action.
17 IT IS SO ORDERED.
18
Dated: October 2, 2019. f A. ~ lenge
ILLIAM"ALSU
20 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28