Melissia Henson et al v. Fidelity National Financial, Inc.

Filing 45

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS 29 by Judge Otis D. Wright, II: The Court therefore STRIKES the purported under-seal filings located at docket entries 41, 42,1 and 43. (SEE DOCUMENT FOR SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS THEREIN re under seal filings) (lc) .Modified on 6/13/2014. (lc).

O

1
2
3
4
5
6

United States District Court
Central District of California

7
8
9
10

MELISSA HENSON and KEITH

11

TURNER on behalf of themselves and

12

others similarly situated,

Case No. 2:14-cv-01240-ODW(RZx)

Plaintiffs,

13

MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON
THE PLEADINGS [29]

v.

14

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S

15

FIDELITY NATIONAL FINANCIAL

16

INC.,
Defendant.

17
18

On June 9 and 10, 2014, Plaintiff Keith Turner filed a total of three Notices of

19

Manual Filing. (ECF Nos. 41–43.) The documents subject to these Notices are the

20

Declaration of Thomas Segal in Support of Reply re Class Certification, Unopposed

21

Ex Parte Application for Leave to File Declaration of Thomas Segal in Support of

22

Reply re Class Certification Under Seal, and Plaintiff’s [Proposed] Order Granting Ex

23

Parte Application to File Declaration of Thomas Segal in Support of Reply re Class

24

Certification Under Seal. The Court has received the latter two documents but not the

25

first—the document the Court presumes is the true subject of the proposed under-seal

26

filing.

27

In any event, none of these filings comply with the Court’s under-seal filing

28

procedures. First, Local Rule 79-5.1 provides that “no case or document shall be filed

1

under seal or in camera without prior approval by the Court.” The Court has yet to

2

approve any under-seal filing related to Turner’s Reply.

3

Second, this Court is participating in an under-seal filing pilot program as

4

outlined in its Rules. See FAQs about Judges’ Procedures and Schedules ¶ XVI,

5

available at http://tiny.cc/ODW_Under_Seal_Procedures. These specific procedures

6

deviate from those set forth in Local Rule 79-5.1 and provide for two different

7

scenarios depending on whether the application to file the documents under seal itself

8

needs to be sealed. Turner has complied with neither avenue.

9

The Court therefore STRIKES the purported under-seal filings located at

10

docket entries 41, 42,1 and 43. If Turner wishes to file a document under seal, and if

11

the application itself does not need to be sealed, he must file the application on the

12

public docket, lodge the proposed order, and email the documents to be sealed to

13

[e-mail]. The Court will thereafter review the documents

14

and rule on the under-seal application. It is not appropriate to manually file the

15

application through the Clerk’s Office.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

16
17

June 13, 2014

18
19

____________________________________
OTIS D. WRIGHT, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

Docket entry 42 actually appears to be a blank PDF.

2