Rivera, et al v. Nibco Inc, et al

Filing 819

SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER Regarding Movants' Motion to Unseal Certain Documents; ORDER Directing Movants to File Redacted and Unsealed Documents signed by Magistrate Judge Helena M. Barch-Kuchta on 09/24/2024. Thirty-Day Deadline. (Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MARTHA RIVERA, et al.,,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

v.
NIBCO INC, et al.,,

15

Defendant.

16

Case No. 1:99-cv-06443-JLT-HBK
SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER REGARDING
MOVANTS’ MOTION TO UNSEAL
CERTAIN DOCUMENTS
ORDER DIRECTING MOVANTS TO FILE
REDACTED AND UNSEALED
DOCUMENTS
30-DAY DEADLINE

17
18

On July 16, 2024, the Court granted in part Movants’ Motion to Unseal certain records in

19

this case, subject to redactions requested by Defendant Nibco Inc. (See Doc. No. 816). Pursuant

20

to the Court’s Order, Movants submitted to the Court the redacted copies of the applicable

21

documents, accompanied by a letter noting minor additional redactions performed by the Parties,1

22

and requesting the Court to rule on two filings that were not addressed by the Court’s July 16,

23

2024 Order. Specifically, Plaintiffs request a ruling on Defendant Nibco Inc.’s proposed

24

redactions to one filing and seek clarification that no redactions should apply to another filing.

25

The Court finds the documents submitted for inspection properly redacted for filing and addresses

26

the additional questions below.

27
1

28

Movants advise that they redacted the name of a client company that the Court ordered redacted in three
additional places. The Court finds these redactions to be appropriate.

A. Defendant Nibco Inc.’s Reply to Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant Nibco, Inc.’s

1
2

Motions for Summary Judgment and/or Summary Adjudication (Doc. No. 401)
In its second Response to Movants’ Motion to Unseal, Defendant Nibco requested that

3
4

certain redactions be made to its Reply to Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant Nibco, Inc.’s

5

Motions for Summary Judgment and/or Summary Adjudication. (Doc. No. 809 at 10). In its

6

previous ruling on Defendant’s proposed redactions, the Court overlooked this document and

7

addresses the proposed redactions herein.

8
9

Page 26, Lines 20-23 and Page 27, Lines 1-2: The referenced passage contains
performance evaluation information pertaining to Plaintiff Chhom Chan. It also mentions a non-

10

party supervisor who performed an evaluation. Because the names of non-parties are typically

11

redacted from court documents to protect their privacy interests, the Court will order the name of

12

the non-party employee redacted but otherwise unseal this document.

13

B. Plaintiffs’ Objections to Evidence Submitted by Defendant in Support of Defendant's

14

Motion for Summary Judgment and in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for

15

Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 407)

16

Defendant Nibco noted in its second Response to Plaintiff’s Motion to Unseal that it

17

sought no redactions to this filing. (Doc. No. 809 at 10). The Court clarifies that the document

18

may be unsealed and filed without any redactions.

19

ACCORDINGLY, it is ORDERED:

20

1. Movant’s requests and clarification are GRANTED to the extent set forth above.

21

2. Within thirty (30) days from the date of this Order, Movant may file on CM/ECF the

22

following documents that were previously sealed and were submitted via email with

23

the redactions to the Court for inspection2 and/or addressed herein:

24

a. Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Defendant’s Motion for
Summary Judgment (with redaction);
b. Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for
Summary Judgment or Summary Adjudication of Issues (with redaction);

25
26
27
2

28

The Court accepts the conformed copies submitted by Movant without the CM/ECF header or document
number as corresponding to the respective document in the Court’s July 16, 2024 Order.

2

c. Separate Statement of Undisputed Facts in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for
Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 315) (with redaction);
d. Plaintiff’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Defendant’s
Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 337) (with redaction);
e. Defendant Nibco’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to
Plaintiff’s’ Motion for Summary Judgment and/or Summary Adjudication (with
redaction);
f. Corrected Reply Memorandum in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary
Judgment (Doc. No. 392) (with redaction);
g. Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant’s Response to Separate Statement of Material
Facts in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 394)
(with redaction);
h. July 12, 2007 Court Order on Cross Motions for Summary Judgment (Doc. No.
436) (no redactions);
i. Defendant Nibco’s Reply to Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant Nibco’s Inc.’s
Motion for Summary Judgment and/or Summary Adjudication (Doc. No. 401)
(with redaction);
j. Plaintiff’s Objections to Evidence Submitted to Defendant in Support of
Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 407) (no redactions).

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

3. Upon the filing of the unsealed documents, the Court deems this matter concluded.

13
14
15

Dated:

September 24, 2024
HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3