Thomsen, et al., v. Sacramento Metropolitan Fire District, et al.,

Filing 136

ORDER signed by Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 6/6/2013 ORDERING parties shall provide their proposed excerpt to the court prior to the start of the hearing now set for 6/7/2013 at 10:30 a.m. The court also directs the parties to be prepared to discuss whether the entire transcript of the DH interview should be sealed and the propriety of redacting the names of the firefighters in the excerpt any party seeks to use at trial. (Waggoner, D)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

MARK THOMSEN, et al. ,
Plaintiffs,

11
12
13

No. CIV S-09-1108 KJM AC

v.
SACRAMENTO METROPOLITAN
FIRE DEPARTMENT, et al.,

ORDER

14
15
16

Defendants.
______________________________/
On June 3, 2013, the court heard argument on the parties’ motions in limine.

17

Nilesh Choudhary, Joel Rapaport, and Samuel Swenson appeared for plaintiff Mark Thomsen;

18

Joseph Salazar, Jr. and Caitlin Colman appeared for defendant Sacramento Metropolitan Fire

19

Department. The court also considered the defendant’s motion for a protective order to redact

20

names from the transcript of an interview with DH and asked the parties for authority on the

21

propriety of redacting all the names in the transcript. Defendant filed a memorandum citing only

22

to the court’s Local Rules 140 and 141, which discuss privacy concerns, redaction and sealing.

23

ECF No. 131. Plaintiff did not file further briefing.

24

The court also ruled, in connection with the motions in limine, that plaintiff

25

would be allowed to offer only a limited portion of the DH transcript at trial and directed the

26

parties to meet and confer on identifying the excerpt. The court directs the parties to provide
1

1

their proposed excerpt to the court prior to the start of the hearing now set for June 7 at 10:30

2

a.m.

3

The court also directs the parties to be prepared to discuss at the June 7 hearing

4

whether the entire transcript of the DH interview should be sealed and the propriety of redacting

5

the names of the firefighters in the excerpt any party seeks to use at trial. See generally United

6

States v. Kravetz, 706 F.3d 47, 62 (1st Cir. 2013) (recognizing that third party privacy interests

7

have been characterized as a common law exception to the presumption of access); Foltz v. State

8

Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1134-38 (9th Cir. 2003) (discussing the requirements

9

for sealing documents at various stages in the litigation); Gardner v. Newsday, Inc. (In re

10

Newsday), 895 F.2d 74, 79 (2d Cir. 1999) (acknowledging the privacy rights of third parties

11

whose intimate relations may be disclosed in documents before the court); United States v.

12

Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1050-51 (2d Cir. 1995) (stating that the privacy rights of innocent third

13

parties should weigh heavily when a court considers access to documents); In re Application of

14

Nat’l Broadcasting Co, Inc., 653 F.2d 609, 614 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (stating that the fact that

15

material was admitted into evidence and provided to the jury weighs heavily in favor of

16

disclosure).

17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: June 6, 2013.

19
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2