Travelers Property Casualty Company of America v. 127 Bayo Vista Condominium…
Travelers Property Casualty Company of America v. 127 Bayo Vista Condominium Association- Oakland
- Susan Illston
- 3:19-cv-04697
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 1
In Travelers Property Casualty v. 127 Bayo Vista, Judge Illston warned that Travelers’ sealing motion would be denied unless Continental filed a required declaration.
Travelers Property Casualty Company of America, Continental Casualty Company, and the parties affected by the requested sealing of the court papers.
What happened
Travelers Property Casualty Company of America asked to seal parts of papers opposing Continental Casualty Company’s summary-judgment motion. Continental had designated the material as confidential.
Continental was required to file a declaration showing that the material could be sealed, but it did not meet the May 6 deadline. The court warned that it would deny Travelers’ motion unless Continental filed the declaration by May 21, 2021.
Judge Susan Illston issued the order on May 18, 2021. The order did not yet deny the sealing motion; it gave Continental another deadline to support sealing.
The detailed version
- Travelers Property Casualty Company of America v. 127 Bayo Vista Condominium… · No. 3:19-cv-04697
- Susan Illston
- May 18, 2021
Background
Travelers Property Casualty Company of America filed an administrative motion to seal portions of its opposition papers responding to Continental Casualty Company’s motion for summary judgment. Continental had designated the material as confidential.
Court’s Analysis and Order
Under Civil Local Rule 79-5(e), Continental was required to file a declaration establishing that the designated material was sealable. The deadline was May 6, 2021, but Continental had not filed the required declaration.
The court advised Continental that it would deny Travelers’ administrative motion to seal unless Continental filed a declaration satisfying Civil Local Rules 79-5(e) and 79-5(d)(1)(A) by May 21, 2021. The order therefore set a further deadline and warned of the expected disposition; it did not state that the motion was already denied.
Disposition
The court issued the warning and deadline and ordered: “IT IS SO ORDERED.”
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.