Green v. Delgado et al

Filing 25

ORDER DENYING Ex Parte Request to Seal Lodged Documents; ORDER DISREGARDING Lodged Motion, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 11/26/2014. (Hall, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ERIC GREEN,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

v.
CORRECTIONS OFFICER O. DELGADO,
et al.,

15

Defendants.

16

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:14-cv-00297 LJO JLT
ORDER DENYING EX PARTE REQUEST TO
SEAL LODGED DOCUMENTS
ORDER DISREGARDING LODGED MOTION

17

On November 22, 2014, Plaintiff forwarded documents to the Court ex parte and requested that

18

they be sealed. Nevertheless, Plaintiff failed to comply with Local Rule 141 related to requests to seal

19

documents and failed to set forth any justification for sealing.1 Thus, the request to seal the documents

20

is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

21

I.

Legal Authority
The request to seal documents is controlled by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). The

22
23

Rule permits the Court to issue orders to “protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment,

24

oppression, or undue burden or expense, including . . . requiring that a trade secret or other

25

confidential research, development, or commercial information not be revealed or be revealed only in

26

a specified way.” Only if good cause exists may the Court seal the information from public view after

27
28

1

The Local Rule cited by Plaintiff fails to provide support for his position that the document should be sealed.

1

1

balancing “the needs for discovery against the need for confidentiality.’” Pintos v. Pac. Creditors

2

Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. Cal. 2010) (quoting Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors

3

Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1213 (9th Cir. 2002)).

4

Generally, documents filed in civil cases are presumed to be available to the public. EEOC v.

5

Erection Co., 900 F.2d 168, 170 (9th Cir. 1990); see also Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu,

6

447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir.2006); Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1134 (9th

7

Cir.2003). Documents may be sealed only when the compelling reasons for doing so outweigh the

8

public’s right of access. EEOC at 170. In evaluating the request, the Court considers the “public

9

interest in understanding the judicial process and whether disclosure of the material could result in

10

improper use of the material for scandalous or libelous purposes or infringement upon trade secrets.”

11

Valley Broadcasting Co. v. United States District Court, 798 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1986).
Notably, this Court’s Local Rule 141 sets forth how a request to seal documents should

12
13

proceed. First, the requesting party should file on the public docket a Notice of Request to Seal

14

Documents. L.R. 141(a). Concurrently with this filing, the requesting party must lodge a Request to

15

Seal Documents which addresses the specific pages of the documents sought to be sealed, the

16

information contained therein and explanation for why the information should be shielded from public

17

view. L.R. 141(b). Ideally, at this time, the moving party would lodge also a proposed redacted copy

18

of the documents with the confidential information obliterated, if any portion of the document is not

19

subject to sealing. The email containing this lodged information must be copied to opposing counsel

20

unless there is sufficient explanation set forth why the matter should proceed ex parte. Then, if there

21

is no objection to the request to seal (L.R. 141(c)), the Court must determine whether each of the

22

pages of the document should be shielded from public view or to what extent they should be.

23

Based upon the foregoing, the Court ORDERS:

24

1.

25

PREJUDICE;

26

///

27

///

28

The request to file the lodged documents under seal is DENIED WITHOUT

///
2

1
2

2.

Because the lodged motion was not filed on the public docket and the Court denies the

request to file it under seal, the lodged motion is DISREGARDED.

3
4
5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

November 26, 2014

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3