Hunt v. Reyes et al
Filing
75
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 05/25/12 denying 67 Motion to seal documents in support of motion for summary judgment without prejudice to refiling no later than 10 days after service of this order. (Plummer, M)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
MICHAEL A. HUNT,
11
12
13
14
Plaintiff,
vs.
D. RIOS, et al.,
Defendants.
15
16
No. CIV S-08-0181 MCE CKD P
ORDER
/
Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this action
17
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff and defendants have filed motions for summary
18
judgment. (Dkt. Nos. 60, 65.) Pending before the court is defendants’ February 13, 2012 motion
19
to seal documents in support of their motion for summary judgment. (Dkt. No. 67.)
20
Defendants request that the court review in camera, and file under seal for
21
seventy-five years, “all documents from the confidential section of Hunt’s central file submitted
22
in support of Defendants’ motion for summary judgment.” (Id. at 1.) Defendants describe the
23
documents as follows:
24
25
26
All of the confidential documents provided information, deemed
reliable by prison officials, that Hunt was associating with known
members of the Bloods disruptive group, and affiliated with that
group. And those documents contain information from prison
inmates, whose safety would be placed in serious jeopardy if their
1
1
identity were known by Hunt or any other inmates.
2
(Id. at 2.) Defendants assert that these documents are relevant to plaintiff’s claim that defendants
3
authored false chronos about plaintiff’s involvement with the Bloods gang in retaliation for filing
4
grievances and lawsuits. (Id.)
5
In their motion, defendants state: “These documents are referenced as Defendants’
6
Exhibit A, B, and C and are authenticated in Defendant’s motion for summary judgment.” (Id.)
7
However, these documents are not attached as exhibits to defendants’ motion for summary
8
judgment or to the instant motion. Rather, the documents are described in general terms in
9
defendants’ Statement of Undisputed Facts as, e.g., “confidential chronos about Hunt’s
10
involvement with the Bloods disruptive group.” (Dkt. No. 65-2, DUF 11.)
11
Local Rule 141 governs the sealing of documents. Rule 141(b) requires a party
12
requesting the sealing of documents to submit to the court “all documents covered by the
13
request,” either by email or on paper. “The documents for which sealing is requested shall be
14
paginated consecutively so that they may be identified without reference to their content, and the
15
total number of submitted pages shall be stated in the request.” (Id.) As it does not appear that
16
defendants complied with this rule by submitting the documents at issue, the court will deny their
17
motion to seal without prejudice to refiling within ten days pursuant to the procedures set forth in
18
Local Rule 141.
19
////
20
////
21
////
22
////
23
////
24
////
25
////
26
////
2
1
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT defendants’ February 13, 2012
2
motion to seal documents in support of motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 67) is denied
3
without prejudice to refiling no later than ten days after service of this order.
4
Dated: May 25, 2012
5
_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
6
7
8
9
2
10
hunt0181.seal
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
3
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?