The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
10
In re: No. C 19-05822 WHA
11 GLUMETZA ANTITRUST No. C 19-05831 WHA
LITIGATION. No. C 19-06138 WHA
12 No. C 19-06156 WHA
No. C 19-06839 WHA
13 No. C 19-07843 WHA
This Document Relates To:
14
(CONSOLIDATED)
ALL ACTIONS.
15
ORDER GRANTING
STIPULATED PROTECTIVE &
16 ELECTRONICALLY STORED
INFORMATION ORDERS
17
18
The stipulated protective order (Dkt. No. 113-1) and electronically stored information
19
order (Dkt. No. 113-2) submitted by the parties are hereby Approved, subject to the following
20
conditions, including adherence to the Ninth Circuit’s strict caution against sealing orders (as
21
set out below):
22
1. The parties must make a good-faith determination that any information designated
23
“confidential” truly warrants protection under Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil
24
Procedure. Designations of material as “confidential” must be narrowly tailored to include
25
only material for which there is good cause. A pattern of over-designation may lead to an
26
order un-designating all or most materials on a wholesale basis.
27
1 2. In order to be treated as confidential, any materials filed with the Court must be
2 lodged with a request for filing under seal in compliance with Civil Local Rule 79-5. Please
3 limit your requests for sealing to only those narrowly tailored portions of materials for which
4 good cause to seal exists. Please include all other portions of your materials in the public file
5 and clearly indicate therein where material has been redacted and sealed. Each filing requires
6 an individualized sealing order; blanket prospective authorizations are no longer allowed by
7 Civil Local Rule 79-5.
8 3. In addition to the requirements of Civil Local Rule 79-5 and other governing law,
9 only for the most compelling reason will the Court grant any sealing request covering
10 information that relates to potential hazards to the health, safety, or well-being of the public.
11 Therefore, when anyone seeks to seal or redact anything filed with the Court, the request must
12 specifically draw attention to any proposed sealing or redaction of information that implicates
13 such issues.
14 4. Chambers copies should include all material — both redacted and unredacted —
15 so that chambers staff does not have to reassemble the whole brief or declaration. Although
16 chambers copies should clearly designate which portions are confidential, chambers copies
17 with confidential materials will be handled like all other chambers copies of materials without
18 special restriction, and will typically be recycled, not shredded.
19 5. In Kamakana v. Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006), the Ninth Circuit
20 held that more than good cause, indeed, “compelling reasons” are required to seal documents
21 used in dispositive motions, just as compelling reasons would be needed to justify a closure of
22 a courtroom during trial. Otherwise, the Ninth Circuit held, public access to the work of the
23 courts will be unduly compromised. Therefore, no request for a sealing order will be allowed
24 on summary judgment motions (or other dispositive motions) unless the movant first shows a
25 “compelling reason,” a substantially higher standard than “good cause.” This will be true
26 regardless of any stipulation by the parties. Counsel are warned that most summary judgment
27 motions and supporting material should be completely open to public view. Only social
1 a compelling nature (like the recipe for Coca Cola, for example) will qualify. If the courtroom
2 would not be closed for the information, nor should any summary judgment proceedings,
3 which are, in effect, a substitute for trial. Motions in limine are also part of the trial and must
4 likewise be laid bare absent compelling reasons. Please comply fully. Noncompliant
5 submissions are liable to be stricken in their entirety.
6 6. Any confidential materials used openly in court hearings or trial will not be
7 treated in any special manner absent a further order.
8 7. This order does not preclude any party from moving to undesignate information
9 or documents that have been designated as confidential. The party seeking to designate
10 material as confidential has the burden of establishing that the material is entitled to protection.
11 8. The Court will retain jurisdiction over disputes arising from the proposed and
12 stipulated protective order for only ninety days after final termination of the action.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
16 Dated: January 21, 2020.
1g AL - Pre
LLIAM ALSUP
19 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28