`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`CITY OF ROSEVILLE EMPLOYEES'
`RETIREMENT SYSTEM,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`APPLE INC., et al.,
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`Case No. 19-cv-02033-YGR (JCS)
`
`ORDER RE ADMINISTRATIVE
`MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER
`ANOTHER PARTY’S MATERIAL
`SHOULD BE SEALED
`
`Re: Dkt. No. 246
`
`In connection with Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Documents Withheld as Privileged,
`
`Plaintiffs filed a motion to seal their supplemental brief and certain supporting declarations based
`
`on Defendants’ confidentiality designations. See dkt. no. 246 (“Sealing Motion”). Pursuant to
`
`Civil Local Rule 79-5, the party that designates material as confidential must, within 7 days of the
`
`filing of such a motion, file a response establishing that the material at issue should be sealed.
`
`Civ.L.R. 79-5(c), (f). It appears that Defendants did not file a response to the Sealing Motion,
`
`which remains pending. The Court requests that within seven (7) days, Defendants file a response
`
`to the Sealing Motion addressing whether the material that is the subject of that motion should
`
`remain under seal. Even if Defendants do not seek to have the material sealed, the Court requests
`
`that they file a response informing the Court that the Sealing Motion can be denied and the
`
`materials sought to be sealed may be filed in the public record.
`
`IT IS SO ORDERED.
`
`Dated: February 14, 2023
`
`______________________________________
`JOSEPH C. SPERO
`Chief Magistrate Judge
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`