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