Pierce v. East Bay Municipal Utility District
- Alex Tse
- 3:21-cv-04325
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 1
In Pierce v. East Bay Municipal Utility District, Judge Tse granted in part and denied in part plaintiffs’ sealing request, permitting some emails to remain sealed but requiring a declaration’s public filing.
The plaintiffs, whose emails may remain sealed but who must file a public version of the Docket 94 Duffy declaration; the ruling also affects public access to the filed materials.
What happened
In Pierce v. East Bay Municipal Utility District, the plaintiffs asked the court to keep certain filed materials from public view. The request concerned emails attached to a declaration and a separate declaration filed at Docket 94.
The court granted in part and denied in part the motion. It allowed the plaintiffs to keep the emails attached as Exhibits 30 and 31 sealed because they were plausibly protected by attorney-client confidentiality. But it denied sealing for the Docket 94 declaration and required the plaintiffs to file a public version by March 3, 2023.
Judge Alex G. Tse issued the February 24, 2023 order. The ruling allowed limited sealing but did not allow confidentiality designations for deposition testimony, by themselves, to justify sealing at the summary-judgment stage.
The detailed version
- Pierce v. East Bay Municipal Utility District · No. 3:21-cv-04325
- Alex Tse
- Feb. 24, 2023
Background
The plaintiffs moved to seal materials filed in the case. The motion concerned emails attached as Exhibits 30 and 31 to Saji Pierce’s declaration, as well as the declaration of D. Jan Duffy filed at Docket 94.
Ruling
The court granted in part and denied in part the motion to seal.
The court granted the motion as to the emails attached as Exhibits 30 and 31. The court said the emails were plausibly protected by attorney-client privilege, which is a rule that can protect confidential communications between a lawyer and client. The court explained that attorney-client privilege can justify sealing even when the court applies the stricter standard requiring a compelling reason for secrecy.
The court denied the motion as to the D. Jan Duffy declaration at Docket 94. The plaintiffs had filed the declaration and then asked the clerk to lock it. The court noted that parts of the declaration might refer to deposition testimony marked confidential, but held that the confidentiality designation was not a compelling reason to seal that testimony at the summary-judgment stage.
Required Filing
The court ordered the plaintiffs to file a public version of the Docket 94 Duffy declaration by March 3, 2023.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.