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)

Download PDF
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

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?