Estrada v. Tassey et al

Filing 173

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 171 Request to Seal Motion for Subpoena Duces Tecum signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 2/22/2015. (Sant Agata, 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
27

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:13cv00919 DLB (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
REQUEST TO SEAL MOTION FOR
SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM
(Document 171)

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 First Amended Complaint is sealed.
Discovery closed on December 15, 2014.
On February 13, 2015, Plaintiff filed a request to seal a motion for the issuance of a subpoena
duces tecum to Sgt. John Amaya.
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). Here, Plaintiff contends that the motion

28
1

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

contains “individual names and identities of confidential informants and also confidential information”
which would jeopardize the safety of the institution and inmates. He states that the motion and
exhibits also contain procedures of CDCR gang investigators and their “techniques.” ECF No. 171, at
1.
The Court has reviewed the motion and its exhibits. However, the motion and exhibits deal
with missing inmate appeals and do not disclose any sensitive information. No inmates are named and
there is no disclosure of rules or regulations. While Exhibit 4 is a Chrono relating to Plaintiff’s gang
debriefing, there is nothing in the document that warrants sealing.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED. Pursuant to Local Rule 141(e)(1), the Clerk of
Court shall return the motion at issue.

11
12
13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Dennis

February 22, 2015

L. Beck

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2