Dagdagan v. City of Vallejo et al

Filing 91

ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr. on 10/7/2011 ORDERING that the Clerk shall file Pltf's "Request to File Documents Under Seal" on the public docket. Pltf's Request is DENIED. (Zignago, K.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

MACARIO BELEN DAGDAGAN,
Plaintiff,

11
12
13
14
15
16

v.
CITY OF VALLEJO, VALLEJO OFFICER
JOHN BOYD (ID# 589), VALLEJO
OFFICER J. WENTZ (ID# 524),
VALLEJO OFFICER JAMES MELVILLE,
Defendants.
________________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

2:08-cv-00922-GEB-KJN
ORDER

17

Plaintiff submitted to chambers via an email to the Courtroom

18

Deputy, for an in camera consideration, a four page “Request to File

19

Documents Under Seal” and the documents Plaintiff seeks to have sealed.

20

Plaintiff states this sealing request is made because he will use the

21

subject documents in support of his opposition to Defendants’ summary

22

judgment motion.

23

Since

it

is

evident

that

Plaintiff’s

“Request

to

File

24

Documents Under Seal” should have been filed on the public docket, the

25

Clerk of the Court shall file Plaintiff’s “Request to File Documents

26

Under Seal” on the public docket.

27
28

Plaintiff,

as

the

movant

to

have

documents

sealed

in

connection with a dispositive motion, must show “compelling reasons

1

1

exist to seal the documents.” Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass'n, 504 F.3d

2

792, 803 (9th Cir. 2007). This showing must be “supported by specific

3

factual findings that outweigh the general history of access and the

4

public policies favoring disclosure, such as the public interest in

5

understanding the judicial process.” Kamakana v. City and County of

6

Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178-79 (9th Cir. 2006) (citations and internal

7

quotation marks omitted).

8
9

Plaintiff’s conclusory arguments in his request do not satisfy
this burden. Therefore, Plaintiff’s request is DENIED.

10

In light of this ruling, the referenced documents are not part

11

of the court docketing system, because when a movant seeks a sealing

12

order

13

standard, the documents are returned to the movant so that the movant

14

can decide what, if any, action should be taken to have the documents

15

included in the court’s docketing system. See United States v. Baez-

16

Alcaino, 718 F. Supp. 1503, 1507 (M.D. Fla. 1989)

17
18

which

is

not

shown

justified

under

the

applicable

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

October 7, 2011

19
20
21

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.
United States District Judge

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2

sealing