Day v. GEICO Casualty Company

District Court, N.D. California·Decided October 16, 2023·No. 5:21-cv-02103·Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 6 7 JESSICA DAY, Case No. 21-cv-02103-BLF

8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO 9 v. CONSIDER WHETHER ANOTHER PARTY'S MATERIAL SHOULD BE 10 GEICO CASUALTY COMPANY, et al., SEALED Defendants. Re: ECF No. 183 11

12 Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another Party’s 13 Material Should Be Sealed (the “Motion”), filed pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5(f). ECF No. 14 183. The Motion concerns (1) an exhibit submitted in support of Plaintiff’s Opposition to 15 GEICO’s Motion to Reconsider Abstention of Jurisdiction that GEICO had previously designated 16 as confidential, and (2) a reference in Plaintiff’s opposition brief to the contents of that exhibit. 17 See id. For the reasons stated below, Plaintiff’s Motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 18 I. LEGAL STANDARD 19 “Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records 20 and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of 21 Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 22 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). Consequently, access to motions and their attachments that are 23 “more than tangentially related to the merits of a case” may be sealed only upon a showing of 24 “compelling reasons” for sealing. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 25 1101–02 (9th Cir. 2016). Filings that are only tangentially related to the merits may be sealed 26 upon a lesser showing of “good cause.” Id. at 1097. 27 1 Local Rule 79-5. Under that rule, when a party seeks to seal a document because it has been 2 designated as confidential by another party, the filing party must file an Administrative Motion to 3 Consider Whether Another Party’s Material Should be Sealed. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(f). The party 4 who designated the material as confidential must, within seven days, file a statement and/or 5 declaration that meets the requirements of subsection 79-5(f)(c)(1). See Civ. L.R. 79- 5(f)(3). A 6 designating party’s failure to file a statement or declaration may result in the unsealing of the 7 provisionally sealed document without further notice to the designating party. See id. Any party 8 can file a response to that statement or declaration within four days. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(f)(4). 10 Plaintiff filed the Motion on October 2, 2023. Any statement or declaration by GEICO in 11 support of sealing was due on October 9, 2023. See Civil L.R. 79-5(f)(3). As of the date of this 12 order, GEICO has not filed a statement or declaration under Civil Local Rule 79-5(f)(3). The 13 Court therefore finds that sealing is not warranted as to either document. See Plexxikon Inc. v. 14 Novartis Pharms. Corp., No. 17-CV-04405- HSG, 2022 WL 1131725, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 31, 15 2022) (denying motions to consider whether another party’s material should be sealed because the 16 designating party failed to comply with Civ. L.R. 79-5(f)(3)). Thus, the Court rules as follows: 17 ECF No. Document Portions to Seal Ruling 18 183-4 Plaintiff’s Opposition to Highlighted DENIED, as failing to comply 19 GEICO’s Motion to Portions with Civ. L.R. 79-5(f)(3). Reconsider Abstention of 20 Jurisdiction 183-5 Exhibit 4 in support of Entire document DENIED, as failing to comply 21 Plaintiff’s Opposition to with Civ. L.R. 79-5(f)(3). GEICO’s Motion to 22 Reconsider Abstention of 23 Jurisdiction 25 For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ORDERED that: 26 1. Plaintiff’s Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another Party’s Material 27 Should Be Sealed, ECF No. 183, is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 1 seven days of the entry of this order. 2 3. If GEICO does not file such a statement or declaration, Plaintiff SHALL, within 3 three days of the passing of GEICO’s deadline to submit a statement or declaration, 4 and without further order from the Court, file on the public docket unredacted 5 versions of the documents sought to be sealed. 6 8 Dated: October 16, 2023 9

eth Labson Freeman I United States District Judge 12

15 16

= 17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Day v. GEICO Casualty Company, (N.D. Cal. 2023).

Day v. GEICO Casualty Company (Day v. GEICO Casualty Company) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Renner v. Bank of Columbia
22 U.S. 581 (Supreme Court, 1824)
Center for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Group, LLC
809 F.3d 1092 (Ninth Circuit, 2016)