Moore v. Chase, Inc.

Filing 95

ORDER DENYING THE PARTIES' STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER 89 ; ORDER THAT THE CLERK OF COURT SHALL SEAL DOCUMENTS FILED ON THE DOCKET AND ORDER THAT DEFENDANT SHALL REFILE REDACTED VERSIONS OF SEALED DOCUMENTS signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 11/14/2015. (Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
RONALD MOORE,
11
Plaintiff,
12

Case No. 1:14-cv-01178-SKO
ORDER DENYING THE PARTIES’
STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER

v.
13
14
15
16

CHASE, INC., d/b/a SLATER SHELL; and
DOES 1-10,
Defendants.
_____________________________________/

ORDER THAT THE CLERK OF COURT
SHALL SEAL DOCUMENTS FILED ON
THE DOCKET
ORDER THAT DEFENDANT SHALL
REFILE REDACTED VERSIONS OF
SEALED DOCUMENTS

17
18
19

On December 2, 2015, Plaintiff Ronald Moore (“Plaintiff”) filed his motion for sanctions

20 against defense counsel. (Doc. 82.) On January 5, 2016, Defendant Chase, Inc. (“Defendant”)
21 filed its opposition to Plaintiff’s motion as well as several declarations and accompanying
22 exhibits. (Docs. 86; 87; 88.) On January 12, 2015, defense counsel filed a declaration informing
23 the Court that he erroneously filed unredacted versions of Exhibits 6 and 7 to Defendant’s
24 opposition to the motion for sanctions at Dockets 86-6 and 86-7. (Doc. 90.)
25

Upon learning that the unredacted versions had been filed to the publicly accessible docket,

26 the parties stipulated to a “protective order to seal” the exhibits. (Doc. 89.) However, as there is
27 no mechanism for the parties to “stipulate” to seal exhibits already filed to the publicly accessible
28 docket, the parties’ stipulated “protective order to seal” the exhibits must be DENIED.

1

The Court recognizes, however, that Plaintiff has an articulable privacy interest in his

2 personal, private, identifying information, including his birthdate. See, e.g., Foltz v. State Farm
3 Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1137 (9th Cir. 2003) (acknowledging privacy interests
4 implicated by sensitive, personal identifying information). Because Plaintiff’s privacy interest in
5 protecting this information is the type of “good cause” that outweighs the general history of access
6 and the public policies favoring disclosure, Kamakana v. Cty. and Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d
7 1172m 1179-80 (9th Cir. 2006), the Court will on its own motion order that these documents be
8 SEALED. Local Rule 141; Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2, 26.
9

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

10

1.

The parties’ stipulated protective order to seal the docket is DENIED;

11

2.

The Clerk of Court is ORDERED to SEAL Exhibit 6, Docket 86-6, and Exhibit 7,
Docket 86-7, of Defendant’s opposition to the motion for sanctions; and

12
13

3.

Defendant is ORDERED to RE-FILE and RE-SERVE redacted versions of Exhibit

14

6, Docket 86-6, and Exhibit 7, Docket 86-7, of Defendant’s opposition to the

15

motion for sanctions within 2 days of the filing of this order.

16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.

18 Dated:

January 14, 2016

/s/ Sheila K. Oberto
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2