Xie v. De Young Properties, 5867 LP

Filing 112

ORDER GRANTING Motion to Redact and Directing Defendant to File Redacted Document in Accordance With Local Rule 140 and This Order 109 , signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 8/30/2018: The Clerk of the Court is directed to strike from the docket Doc. No. 96 and defense counsel shall file an appropriately redacted replacement in keeping with this order as soon as possible. (Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

AGNES XIE,

12
13
14
15

No. 1: 16-cv-01518-DAD-SKO
Plaintiff,

v.
DE YOUNG PROPERTIES 5418, LP,

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO REDACT
AND DIRECTING DEFENDANT TO FILE
REDACTED DOCUMENT IN ACCORDANCE
WITH LOCAL RULE 140 AND THIS ORDER

Defendant.
(Doc. No. 109)

16
17

Plaintiff Agnes Xie (“plaintiff”) filed a complaint against defendant De Young Properties

18

5418, LP (“defendant”) on October 7, 2016. (Doc. No. 1.) On June 26, 2018, defendant filed a

19

motion for summary judgment, supported by four exhibits, and noticed the motion for hearing on

20

August 7, 2018. (Doc. No. 70.)

21

On June 28, 2018, after receiving an email from plaintiff, the court issued a minute order

22

directing the Clerk of the Court to temporarily seal exhibit 4 to defendant’s motion for summary

23

judgment (Doc. No. 70-4) and directing defendant’s counsel to immediately file an appropriately

24

redacted exhibit because the exhibit as originally filed included confidential information that

25

should have been redacted pursuant to Local Rule 140. (Doc. No. 71.) On June 29, 2018,

26

defendant filed a notice of request to seal documents, or alternatively, to allow redactions. (Doc.

27

No. 72.) On July 2, 2018, the court issued an order directing defendant to file redacted

28

documents, with redactions of financial account numbers, social security numbers, dates of birth,
1

1
2

and plaintiff’s current and previous addresses. (Doc. No. 73.)
On July 24, 2018, plaintiff filed a motion to seal documents and to direct defendant to

3

refile with redactions. (Doc. No. 83.) Plaintiff alleged that defendant did not properly seal the

4

exhibits containing plaintiff’s confidential information, and moved for sanctions to be imposed on

5

defendant. (Doc. Nos. 82–83.) The court denied plaintiff’s motion to sanction defendant but

6

struck the prior exhibits and directed defendant to replace them with a version including

7

additional redactions. (Doc. No. 92.)

8
9

On August 14, 2018, plaintiff filed yet another motion to seal documents and to direct
defendant to refile with redactions. (Doc. No. 109.) Plaintiff requests further redactions of

10

numbers that she claims can be used to determine her social security number, date of birth, and

11

passport numbers. (Id.) Defendant does not oppose this motion.

12

The legal standards regarding requests to seal and redact have been set forth in this court’s

13

prior orders and will not be repeated at length here. (See Doc. No. 73 at 2–3.) Plaintiff now

14

argues that additional documents include personally identifiable numbers that could result in

15

identity theft and should be sealed. (Doc. No. 109.) The court will grant plaintiff’s unopposed

16

motion as to the following documents: MSJ-0044, MSJ-0051, MSJ-0054, MSJ-0055, MSJ-0056,

17

MSJ-0057. Accordingly, defendant is ordered to file a redacted version of Doc. No. 96 that

18

reflects the redactions as described by plaintiff. (See Doc. No. 109.)

19

For these reasons:

20

1.

Plaintiff’s unopposed motion to redact (Doc. No. 109) is granted;

21

2.

The Clerk of the Court is directed to strike from the docket Doc. No. 96 and

22

defense counsel shall file an appropriately redacted replacement in keeping with

23

this order as soon as possible.

24
25
26

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

August 30, 2018
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

27
28
2