Manago v. Davey et al

Filing 82

ORDER GRANTING 77 Motion to Redact Exhibits; ORDER for Defendants to Re-Submit Exhibits B, C, and D, With the Appropriate Redactions as Discussed in This Order Within Twenty-One (21) Days; and ORDER for Clerk to Seal Exhibits C, D, and E, Showing on the Docket as ECF No. 75-2, Pages 11-22 signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 5/8/2017. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

Plaintiff,

13
14

1:16-cv-00399-LJO-GSA-PC

STEWART MANAGO,

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
REDACT EXHIBITS
(ECF No. 77.)

vs.
D. DAVEY, et al.,

15

ORDER FOR DEFENDANTS TO RESUBMIT EXHIBITS B, C, AND D, WITH
THE APPROPRIATE REDACTIONS AS
DISCUSSED IN THIS ORDER
(ECF No. 75-2, PAGES 11-22.)

Defendants.

16
17

TWENTY-DAY DEADLINE

18
19

ORDER FOR CLERK TO SEAL
EXHIBITS C, D, AND E, SHOWING ON
THE DOCKET AS ECF NO. 75-2, PAGES
11-22.

20
21
22
23
24

I.

BACKGROUND

25

Stewart Manago (“Plaintiff”) is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

26

pauperis with this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the

27

Complaint commencing this action on March 24, 2016. (ECF No. 1.) This case now proceeds

28

with the First Amended Complaint filed on April 18, 2016, against defendants J. Acevedo, D.
1

1

Davey, A. Maxfield, E. Razo, M.V. Sexton, A. Valdez, and J. Vanderpoel (collectively,

2

“Defendants”), on Plaintiff’s First Amendment retaliation claims. (ECF No. 13.)

3

On February 17, 2017, Defendants filed a motion for protective order. (ECF No. 75.)

4

On the same date, after the motion was filed, Defendants filed a request to redact information

5

from Exhibits C, D, and E, which they had submitted with the motion for protective order.

6

(ECF No. 77.) Plaintiff has not opposed the motion to redact, which is now before the court.

7

II.

MOTION TO REDACT EXHIBITS

8

A.

9

The common-law “right to inspect and copy judicial records is not absolute.” Nixon v.

10

Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978). A litigant may request court records be

11

sealed or redacted. See id. (listing traditional examples). In the Ninth Circuit, courts faced

12

with requests to seal or redact begin “with a strong presumption favor of access to court

13

records.” Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003).

14

However as here, for a document attached to a non-dispositive motion, the “usual presumption

15

of the public’s right of access is rebutted,” Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d

16

1172, 1180 (9th Cir. 2006), and rather than “compelling reasons,” only “good cause” to

17

withhold the information must be shown, Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178 (quoting Phillips v.

18

General Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1213 (9th Cir. 2002)). Local Rule 140 provides that

19

“when filing documents, counsel . . . shall omit or, where reference is necessary, partially

20

redact . . . personal data identifiers from all pleadings, documents, and exhibits.” L.R. 140(a)

Legal Standard

21

B.

22

Defendants assert that, due to administrative error, they have filed documents

23

displaying telephone numbers and the date of birth of Pa’tashia U. Kyle, without redaction,

24

Defendants’ Exhibits C, D, and E, attached to the “Declaration of Annakarina de la Torre-

25

Fennell in support of Defendants’ Motion for Protective Order” (ECF No. 75-2), filed on

26

February 17, 2017. The court finds good cause to redact the referenced personal information

27

from these documents. Therefore, Defendants’ request to redact exhibits (ECF No. 77), filed

28

on February 17, 2017, shall be granted.

Discussion

2

1

Defendants shall refile Exhibits C, D, and E in their entirety, with the appropriate

2

redactions. Pending the filing of the redacted documents, the Clerk of Court shall seal Exhibits

3

C, D, and E, showing on the docket as ECF No. 75-2, pages 11-22.

4

III.

CONCLUSION

5

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

6

1.

Defendants’ motion to redact phone numbers and the date of birth of Pa’tashia

7

U. Kyle Plaintiff's date of birth from their Exhibits C, D, and E, attached to the

8

“Declaration of Annakarina de la Torre-Fennell in support of Defendants’

9

Motion for Protective Order” (ECF No. 75-2), is GRANTED;

10

2.

11
12

Within twenty days of the date of service of this order, Defendants shall refile
Exhibits C, D, and E in their entirety, with the appropriate redactions; and

3.

13

Pending the filing of the redacted documents, the Clerk of Court shall seal
Exhibits C, D, and E showing on the docket as ECF No. 75-2, pages 11-22.

14
15
16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

May 8, 2017

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3