Hall et al v. City of Fairfield et al

Filing 47

ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 9/12/11 ORDERING that Pltfs submitted to chambers via an email to the Courtroom Deputy, for an in camera consideration, a "Request to Seal Documents" and the documents Pltfs seek to have seale d. Pltfs state this sealing request is made in connection with their motion for summary adjudication. Pltfs' "Request to Seal Documents" should have been filed on the public docket, the Clerk shall file pltfs' "Request to S eal Documents" on the public docket. Pltfs indicate their authority justifying sealing the other documents is a "Stipulation and Order to Protect Confidential Information" 35 . However, this authority has not been shown sufficient to justify the sealing request; therefore, the request is Denied. (Becknal, R)

1
2
3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
5
6
7
8

MARKUS M. HALL, an individual;
MONIQUE G. RANKIN, an
individual; and LINDSEY K.
SANDERS, an individual,
Plaintiffs,

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

v.
CITY OF FAIRFIELD, a California
municipal corporation; OFFICER
NICK McDOWELL, individually and
in his capacity as a police
officer with the CITY OF
FAIRFIELD; OFFICER CHRIS GRIMM,
individually and in his capacity
as a police officer with the
CITY OF FAIRFIELD; OFFICER TOM
SHACKFORD, individually and in
his capacity as a police officer
with the CITY OF FAIRFIELD;
OFFICER ZACK SANDOVAL,
individually and in his
capacity as a police officer
with the CITY OF FAIRFIELD;
SERGEANT STEVE CRANE,
individually and in his capacity
as a police officer with the
CITY OF FAIRFIELD; IN-N-OUT
BURGER, a California
corporation; and MARC L. YOUNG,
an individual; and DOES 1
through 50, inclusive,
Defendants.
________________________________

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

2:10-cv-00508-GEB-DAD
ORDER

25

Plaintiffs submitted to chambers via an email to the Courtroom

26

Deputy, for an in camera consideration, a “Request to Seal Documents”

27

and the documents Plaintiffs seek to have sealed. Plaintiffs state this

28
1

1

sealing request is made in connection with their motion for summary

2

adjudication of issues.

3

Since

it

is

evident

that

Plaintiffs’

“Request

to

Seal

4

Documents” should have been filed on the public docket, the Clerk of the

5

Court shall file Plaintiffs’ “Request to Seal Documents” on the public

6

docket.

7

Plaintiffs indicate their authority justifying sealing the

8

other documents is a “Stipulation and Order to Protect Confidential

9

Information” (“Stipulation”), filed in this action as Docket Number 35

10

on March 22, 2011. However, this authority has not been shown sufficient

11

to justify the sealing request; therefore, the request is denied.

12

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

13

of the court docketing system. See United States v. Baez-Alcaino, 718 F.

14

Supp. 1503, 1507 (M.D. Fla. 1989) (explaining that when a judge decides

15

in camera that the movant for a sealing order fails to justify a sealing

16

request, the documents are returned to the movant so that the movant can

17

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

18

included in the court’s docketing system).

19

Dated:

September 12, 2011

20
21
22

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.
United States District Judge

23
24
25
26
27
28
2