Graham v. Runnels, et al

Filing 101

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 4/25/12 ORDERING that 96 Motion to Seal the entire pending dispositive motion is denied; however, construed more narrowly as a request to seal only those portions for which defendants have time ly submitted, on April 23, 2012, a proposed redacted version (pursuant to this courts order), the motion, as modified, is granted; Defendants are directed to file in the case docket open to public viewing the April 23, 2012, proposed redacted version of their motion for summary judgment and supporting exhibits, submitted to the court for in camera review; and the unredacted version of defendants March 29, 2012, motion for summary judgment and supporting exhibits, submitted for in camera review, shall be filed and maintained under seal until further order of the court. (Dillon, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

LEVON D. GRAHAM,

10

Plaintiff,

11
12
13

vs.
D.L. RUNNELS, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER
/

14
15

No. CIV S-07-2291 GGH P

By Order, filed on April 8, 2012, defendants Kopec and Martin were directed to

16

submit, within fourteen days, for in camera review a proposed redacted version of the documents,

17

for the entirety of which they sought a sealing order by a request filed on March 29, 2012. In the

18

April 8th order, the court, inter alia, informed the parties that the undersigned was contemplating

19

the filing of the unredacted motion/opposition under seal along with a public filing of the

20

redacted motion/opposition.

21

Defendants have timely submitted a proposed redacted version of the defendants’

22

dispositive motion and exhibits. The court’s review demonstrates that defendants have

23

appropriately limited the proposed redacted material to information that could well implicate

24

institutional safety and security; there is also a limited amount of suggested redaction that

25

encompasses material, i.e., medical information, that legitimately implicates private and highly

26

personal concerns. The court finds there are compelling reasons for the very limited information
1

1

not to be subject to public scrutiny which defendants have now shown some restraint in

2

identifying. Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass’n., 605 F.3d 665, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2010).

3

Accordingly, IT IS SO ORDERED that:

4

1. Defendants’ motion, filed on March 29, 2012 (docket # 96), for an order sealing

5

their entire pending dispositive motion is denied; however, construed more narrowly as a request

6

to seal only those portions for which defendants have timely submitted, on April 23, 2012, a

7

proposed redacted version (pursuant to this court’s order), the motion, as modified, is granted;

8

2. Defendants are directed to file in the case docket open to public viewing the

9
10

April 23, 2012, proposed redacted version of their motion for summary judgment and supporting
exhibits, submitted to the court for in camera review; and
3. The unredacted version of defendants’ March 29, 2012, motion for summary

11
12

judgment and supporting exhibits, submitted for in camera review, shall be filed and maintained

13

under seal until further order of the court.

14

DATED: April 25, 2012
/s/ Gregory G. Hollows
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

15
16
GGH:009

17

grah2291.ord2

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2