Estrada v. Tassey et al
Filing
115
ORDER GRANTING 114 Motion to Seal, Motion to Compel, signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 11/20/14. (Martin-Gill, S)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
DAVID ESTRADA,
12
Plaintiff,
13
v.
14
GIPSON, et al.,
15
Defendants.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No.: 1:13cv00919 DLB (PC)
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
REQUEST TO SEAL DOCUMENT
(Document 114)
Plaintiff David Estrada (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis
in this civil rights action. Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint on August 7, 2013. Pursuant to
the Court’s screening order and Plaintiff’s notice of willingness to proceed on the cognizable claims,
this action is proceeding against (1) Defendants Gipson and Espinosa for retaliation in violation of the
First Amendment; and (2) Defendants Gipson, Espinosa, Lambert and Cavazos for violation of the
Eighth Amendment.
The action is currently in discovery.
On November 14, 2014, Plaintiff filed a request that his motion to compel be filed under seal.
Filings in cases such as this are a matter of public record absent compelling justification.
United States v. Stoterau, 524 F.3d 988, 1012 (9th Cir. 2008). In this action, the original complaint
27
28
1
1
2
3
4
5
and the First Amended Complaint are sealed. Numerous additional filings that set forth allegations in
the First Amended Complaint and/or contain names of specific inmates have also been sealed.
Plaintiff’s motion to compel seeks information related to his allegations in the First Amended
Complaint. Out of an abundance of caution, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s request and ORDERS that
the motion to compel be filed under seal.
6
7
8
9
10
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
/s/ Dennis
November 20, 2014
L. Beck
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?