Hall et al v. City of Fairfield et al

Filing 92

ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr. on 12/7/2011 DENYING 67 Motion to Seal; Motion for Sanctions. (Michel, G)

1
2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

4
5

Markus M. Hall, Monique G.
Rankin, Lindsey K. Sanders,

6

Plaintiffs,

7
8

v.

10

City of Fairfield, Nick
McDowell, Chris Grimm, Tom
Shackford, Zack Sandoval, Steve
Crane,

11

Defendants.
________________________________

9

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

2:10-cv-0508-GEB-DAD
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO SEAL DOCUMENTS;
DENYING DEFENDANTS’ REQUEST
FOR SANCTIONS

12
13

On October 7, 2011, Defendants filed a motion to place under

14

seal exhibits C, D, E and F, which are attached to the declaration of

15

Garret Murai (“exhibits”). This motion is denied because it fails to

16

satisfy the applicable “compelling reasons” reasons standard. Kamakana

17

v. City and Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006).

18

Defendants also request that Plaintiffs’ counsel be sanctioned

19

$500 under Local Rule 110, since a protective order in this case

20

prohibited Plaintiffs from filing the exhibits on the public docket.

21

However, in light of the nature of the motion involved in Defendants’

22

request for a sanction, Defendants have not shown that the referenced

23

protective

24

Defendants’ sanctions request is DENIED.

25

Dated:

order

justifies

the

sanction

they

seek.

December 7, 2011

26
27
28

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.
United States District Judge

1

Therefore,