Opinion
2:07-cv-1501-GEB-GGH.
May 16, 2008
ORDER
This matter was determined to be suitable for decision without oral argument. L.R. 78-230(h).
On May 13, 2008, Plaintiff submitted to chambers for in camera review a motion for class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, a motion for conditional collective certification under 26 U.S.C. § 216(b) and a Declaration of Gerald D. Wells, III in support of those motions. Plaintiff seeks decision on whether these documents could be filed under seal. (Mot. to Seal the Briefs, Dkt. No. 31; Mot. to Seal the Decl., Dkt. No. 29.) For the following reasons, the motions to seal are denied.
The issue of whether the briefs and declarations submitted in support of the motions for class certification should be sealed is governed by a "compelling reasons" standard. See Kamakana v. City County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178-80 (9th Cir. 2006) (holding that dispositive motions, and related materials, may only be sealed by meeting a "compelling reasons" standard); see also In re Dynamic Random Access Memory (DRAM) Antitrust Litig., 2007 WL 707499 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 6, 2007) (indicating a class certification motion is akin to a dispositive motion); Caranci v. Blue Cross Shield of Rhode Island, 194 F.R.D. 27, 31 (D.R.I. 2000) (same).
This standard has not been satisfied. Therefore, the motions to file documents under seal are denied. The Clerk of the Court is directed to return the motion for class certification, the motion for conditional collective certification and the Declaration of Gerald D. Wells, III to Plaintiff's counsel.
IT IS SO ORDERED.