Xie v. De Young Properties, 5867 LP

Filing 92

ORDER granting Plaintiff's Request to Redact 83 and denying Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions 82 signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 7/31/2018. (Lundstrom, T)

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 PLAINTIFF’S
REQUEST TO REDACT AND DENYING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
SANCTIONS

Defendant.
(Doc. Nos. 82, 83)

16
17

Plaintiff Agnes Xie (“plaintiff”) filed her complaint in this action against defendant De

18

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

19

defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, supported by four exhibits, and noticed the

20

motion for hearing on August 7, 2018. (Doc. No. 70.) On June 28, 2018, after receiving an email

21

from plaintiff, the court issued a minute order directing the Clerk of the Court to temporarily seal

22

exhibit 4 to defendant’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 70-4) and directing defendant’s

23

counsel to immediately file an appropriately redacted exhibit because the exhibit as originally

24

filed included confidential information that should have been redacted pursuant to Local Rule

25

140. (Doc. No. 71.)

26

After the exhibit was temporarily sealed, defendant filed a notice of request to seal

27

documents. (Doc. No. 72.) Defendant’s request stated that though the documents have been

28

redacted in accordance with Local Rule 140, “[o]ut of an abundance of caution, and at the request
1

1

of Plaintiff Agnes Xie, Defendant seeks the additional protection afforded by filing under seal.”

2

(Id. at 1.) On July 2, 2018, the court issued an order denying defendant’s request to seal but

3

directing defendant to file redacted documents. (Doc. No. 73.) Specifically, the order instructed

4

the parties to “ensure that all documents filed on the public docket conform to Local Rule 140,

5

which requires redaction of financial account numbers (L.R. 140(a)(ii)), social security numbers

6

(L.R. 140(a)(iii)); and dates of birth (L.R. 140(a)(iv)).” (Id. at 4.) The court also authorized the

7

redaction of plaintiff’s current and previous addresses. (Id.) On July 2, 2018, defendant filed a

8

redacted version of Doc. No. 70-4. (Doc. No. 74.) On July 3, 2018, defendant resubmitted a

9

redacted version of Doc. No. 70-4. (Doc. No. 76.)

10

On July 24, 2018, plaintiff filed a “Motion for Seal and Redaction” (Doc. No. 83) and a

11

notice of request to seal documents (Doc. No. 85). Plaintiff requests that the court seal

12

defendant’s filing and order that defendant refile with proper redactions. (Doc. No. 83 at 1.)

13

Further, plaintiff also filed a motion to sanction defendant for violation of this court’s order

14

directing defendant to file redacted documents. (Doc. No. 82.)

15

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

16

prior order and will not be repeated at length here. (See Doc. No. 73 at 2–3.) Here, plaintiff

17

requests that this court redact the following bates-labelled documents of exhibit 4 supported in

18

support of defendant’s motion for summary judgment: MSJ-0024, MSJ-0025, MSJ-0027-0032,

19

MSJ-0044-0048, MSJ-0051, MSJ-0054-0057, MSJ-0069-0089. (Doc. No. 83.) The court has

20

reviewed the documents identified by plaintiff. All of the identified documents have been

21

properly redacted by defendant, with the exception of MSJ-0045. Defendant is ordered to file a

22

redacted version of Doc. No. 70-4 that includes all redactions ordered by the court, including

23

redaction of the home address appearing on MSJ-0045.

24

Plaintiff also requests that the court impose sanctions on defendant due to their failure to

25

properly redact documents they have filed on the public docket. “[A] district court may levy

26

sanctions pursuant to its inherent power for willful disobedience of a court order . . . or when the

27

losing party has acted in bad faith, vexatiously, wantonly, or for oppressive reasons.” Evon v.

28

Law Offices of Sidney Mickell, 688 F.3d 1015, 1035 (9th Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks and
2

1

citation omitted). Here, the court finds no evidence that defendant’s conduct was willful and thus

2

denies plaintiff’s request for imposition of sanctions. See F.J. Hanshaw Enter., Inc. v. Emerald

3

River Dev., Inc., 244 F.3d 1128, 1135 (9th Cir. 2001) (“With respect to sanctions, a district

4

court’s factual findings are given great deference.”).

5

Accordingly:

6

1.

Plaintiff’s motion to redact (Doc. No. 83) is granted in part and denied in part;

7

2.

The Clerk of the Court is directed to strike from the docket Doc. Nos. 74 and 76

8

and defense counsel shall file an appropriately redacted replacement in keeping

9

with this order as soon as possible; and

10
11
12
13

3.

Plaintiff’s motion to sanction defendant (Doc. No. 82) is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

July 31, 2018
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3