`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`CITY OF ROSEVILLE EMPLOYEES'
`RETIREMENT SYSTEM,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`APPLE INC., et al.,
`
`Case No. 19-cv-02033-YGR (JCS)
`
`
`ORDER RE ADMINISTRATIVE
`MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER
`ANOTHER PARTY’S MATERIAL
`SHOULD BE SEALED
`
`Defendants.
`
`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”). At the Court’s
`
`request, Defendants have filed a response stating that do not seek to have the Court seal the
`
`materials at issue in the Sealing Motion and have no objection to the Court denying it and
`
`permitting the filing of the materials in the public record. Defendants have asked, however, that
`
`Plaintiffs be required to redact the email addresses of Apple personnel in the materials before
`
`filing them in the public record to protect those employees’ privacy. That request is granted.
`
`Accordingly, the Sealing Motion is DENIED except as to the email addresses of Apple personnel
`
`referenced in the materials, which shall be redacted from the public version of the documents.
`
`IT IS SO ORDERED.
`
`
`
`Dated: February 21, 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
`
`