EEOC v. ABM Janitorial Services, Inc.

Filing 228

ORDER GRANTING 225 MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL, signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 05/11/2010. (Martin, S)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 and 10 ERIKA MORALES, et al. 11 Plaintiff Intervenors, 12 13 14 Defendants. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2. 3. 4. In this Title VII sexual harassment action, the parties seek to file under seal the motion for summary adjudication and related documents. On April 29, 2010, the parties filed a stipulation to request permission to file under seal pleadings pertaining to the Bakersfield claimants. This Court's April 30, 2010 Order granted the parties permission to file the documents under seal, ruling: "The parties are permitted to file under seal papers to comply with the protective order." On May 10, 2010, defendants ABM Industries Inc., ABM Janitorial Services, Inc., ABM Janitorial Northern California ("ABM defendants") moved to file the following documents under seal: 1. ABM defendants' notice of motion and motion for summary adjudication re: Bakersfield claimants/intervenors ("Motion"); ADM defendants' memorandum of points and authorities in support of Motion; Declaration of Laura E. Hayward in support of Motion; Statement of Undisputed Facts in support of Motion; and 1 / vs. ABM INDUSTRIES INCORPORATED, et al., U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT Plaintiff, CASE NO. CV F 07-1428 LJO JLT ORDER ON MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL (Doc. 225) IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

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

5.

Proposed Order Granting ABM defendants' Motion.

The ABM defendants move to file the documents under seal, because pursuant to a July 24, 2008 Protective Order, the ABM defendants are prevented from referring to these anonymous plaintiffs/claimants by name. The ABM defendants aver that Protective Order continues to be required, because plaintiff EEOC continues to maintain that the names of the anonymous plaintiffs/claims at issue in this action must be kept out of all public filings. The ABM defendants contend that notwithstanding the Protective Order, they are required to refer to each individual by name in the pleadings and attach the individuals' depositions. The ADM defendants further assert that there "is no way to redact all of the names from these documents and exhibits without them being rendered meaningless." This Court, having determined that there is good cause to protect the confidentiality of the information contained in the documents identified above, and pursuant to Local Rule 141, this Court: 1. 2. GRANTS the ABM defendants' motion to file the documents under seal; DIRECTS the clerk of court to file under seal the complete, unredacted versions of the documents identified on page 2, lines 3-8 of this Order; and 3. ORDERS the ABM defendants, no later than May 24, 2010, to file a redacted copy of the motion and any supporting papers. The redactions shall be narrowly tailored to protect only that information that is confidential or was deemed confidential.

IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: b9ed48 May 11, 2010 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2