Xie v. De Young Properties, 5867 LP
ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR AN ORDER SEALING DOCUMENTS. Plaintiff's request for an Order sealing documents (Doc. 14) is DENIED without prejudice to renewing the request. Order signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 2/8/2017. (Thorp, J)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
DE YOUNG PROPOERTIES, 5418 L.P. (DE
ORDER DENYING WITHOUT
PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST
FOR AN ORDER SEALING
Case No. 1:16-cv-01518-DAD-SKO
On February 3, 2017, Plaintiff Agnes Xie, proceeding pro se, filed a document titled
15 “Seeking Protective Order Motion to File Under Seal” requesting that “the Court issue an Order
16 permitting the filing under seal of the documents and expunge the electronic version of those
17 documents” and that the Court “redact below information from Defendant’s filing and its exhibits
18 already filed.”
(Doc. 14.) The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s request for an order sealing
19 documents and has determined that, in its current form, it cannot be granted. For the reasons set
20 forth below, the Court DENIES without prejudice Plaintiff’s request.
The Request to Seal Documents Does Not Comply with Local Rule 141.
Plaintiff’s request for a Court order sealing documents does not comply with Rule 141
24 (“Sealing of Documents”) of the Local Rules of the United States District Court, Eastern District
25 of California. Pursuant to Local Rule 141(b), any party seeking to seal documents must submit a
26 “Notice of Request to Seal Documents,” a “Request to Seal Documents,” a proposed order, and all
27 documents covered by the request.
Plaintiff’s request fails to meet these
Local Rule 141(b) requires that the “Request to Seal Documents” (1) set forth the statutory
3 or other authority for sealing; (2) the requested duration; (3) the identity, by name or category, of
4 persons to be permitted access to the documents; and (4) all other relevant information, and
be either (1) e-mailed to the appropriate Judge or Magistrate Judge’s proposed
orders e-mail box listed on the Court’s website, with the e-mail subject line
including the case number and the statement: “Request to Seal Documents”; or (2)
submitted on paper to the Clerk by hand delivery, by same-day or overnight
courier, or by U.S. Mail; the envelope containing the Request, proposed order an
documents shall state in a prominent manner “Request to Seal Documents.”
[. . .]
Except in matters in which it is clearly appropriate not to serve the “Request to
Seal Documents,” proposed order, and/or documents upon the parties, which
would include criminal pre-indictment matters, all Requests, proposed orders, and
submitted documents shall be served on all parties on or before the day they are
submitted to the Court. See L.R. 135.
13 L.R. 141(b). Plaintiff’s request does not identify the statutory or other authority for sealing, the
14 requested duration of the sealing, and the identity of persons who are permitted to access the
15 documents. (See Doc. 14.) Nor was Plaintiff’s request submitted to the Court or served on
16 Defendant in the manner prescribed by the Rule.
Plaintiff’s request for an Order sealing documents is Denied Without Prejudice.
Plaintiff may submit a “Request to Seal Documents” that complies with Local Rule 141
19 and corrects the deficiencies set forth in this order. In addition, Plaintiff may re-file a revised
20 “Notice of Request to Seal Documents” that (1) describes generally the documents sought to be
21 sealed; (2) the basis for sealing; (3) the manner in which the ‘Request to Seal Documents,’
22 proposed order, and the documents themselves were submitted to the Court; and (4) whether the
23 Request, proposed order, and documents were served on all other parties. See L.R. 141(b).
27 Rule 183(a) of the Local Rules of the United States District Court, Eastern District of California, provides in part:
“Any individual representing himself or herself without an attorney is bound by the Federal Rules of Civil or Criminal
Procedure, these Rules, and all other applicable law. All obligations placed on ‘counsel’ by these Rules apply to
individuals appearing in propria persona.”).
CONCLUSION AND ORDER
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s request for an Order sealing
3 documents (Doc. 14) is DENIED without prejudice to renewing the request.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
February 8, 2017
Sheila K. Oberto
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?