Bell v. United States Department of Interior et al

Filing 104

ORDER denying 91 , 97 REQUESTS to seal exhibits signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on July 31, 2013: Within seven days of the date of this order, plaintiff is directed to re-file partially redacted versions of exhibits ECF Nos. 86-3 and 87-5. The Clerk of the Court is directed to unseal ECF No. 86-5. (Kaminski, H)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

YOLANDA YVETTE BELL,

11

Plaintiff,

12
13
14

No. 2:12-cv-01414 TLN JFM (PS)

v.

ORDER

UNITED STATES DEP’T OF INTERIOR,
KENNETH SALAZAR, Secretary,
Defendants.

15
16

Plaintiff is proceeding in pro per in this action. Currently before the court are plaintiff’s

17
18

requests to seal exhibits pursuant to Local Rule 141, filed on July 8, 2013, and July 16, 2013.

19

ECF Nos. 91 and 97. Defendants have not submitted an opposition or statement of non-

20

opposition as required by Local Rule 141.
In her first request to seal exhibits, filed July 8, 2013 (ECF No. 91), plaintiff requests to

21
22

seal the following exhibits: ECF Nos. 86-3, 86-5 and 87-5.1 These exhibits are third party

23

subpoenas that contain plaintiff’s Social Security number and date of birth, and a letter to

24

defendants’ counsel. ECF No. 91. Plaintiff requests that the court seal these exhibits because

25

they contain her personal data identifiers. Local Rule 141 provides that “[d]ocuments may be

26
27
28

1

Upon plaintiff’s filing of her request to seal, the Clerk of the Court temporarily sealed these
exhibits. For the reasons discussed below, ECF Nos. 86-3 and 87-5 will remain sealed
notwithstanding plaintiff’s filing of redacted versions.
1

1

sealed only by written order of the Court, upon the showing required by applicable law.” L.R.

2

141(a). Plaintiff has provided no authority in support of her request to seal the entirety of the

3

exhibits. Furthermore, third party subpoenas and correspondence with counsel are generally not

4

the type of judicial records that are sealed. See Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447

5

F.3d 1172, 1178-79 (9th Cir. 2006) (a party seeking to seal a judicial record bears the burden of

6

overcoming a strong presumption in favor of access); Phillips v. General Motors, 307 F.3d 1206,

7

1210, 1213 (9th Cir. 2002) (non-dispositive documents and exhibits may be sealed if the party

8

shows “good cause” for limiting access). However, the court is cognizant that a party’s personal

9

data identifiers must be kept from the judicial record. Local Rule 140 provides the following

10

guidelines for redacting personal data identifiers:

11

13

[W]hen filing documents, counsel and the Court shall omit or,
where reference is necessary, partially redact the following personal
data identifiers from all pleadings, documents, and exhibits,
whether filed electronically or on paper, unless the Court orders
otherwise:

14

....

12

15

(iii)

Social Security numbers: Use only the last four
numbers;

(iv)

Dates of birth: Use only the year;

16
17
....

18
19

L.R. 140(a). Thus, the party filing exhibits containing such identifiers (in this instance, the

20

plaintiff) is required to redact that information prior to filing the exhibit. That was not done here.

21

Therefore, an order sealing the pages of the earlier filed exhibits containing plaintiff’s personal

22

data identifiers, i.e. ECF No. 86-3 at 1, 5-6, 8, 12-13, 15, 19-20, 22, 26-27, 29, 33-34, and ECF

23

No. 87-5 at 1, 5-6,2 and directing plaintiff to re-file partially redacted versions of those exhibits

24

which do not display plaintiff’s personal data identifiers is appropriate. Plaintiff’s request to seal

25

will otherwise be denied and plaintiff will be granted leave to re-file partially redacted versions of

26

these exhibits in accordance with L.R. 140.

27
28

2

The court notes that ECF No. 86-5 does not contain any personal data identifiers. Therefore, the
Clerk of the Court is directed to unseal this exhibit.
2

1

In her second request to seal, filed July 16, 2013, plaintiff requests to seal a document

2

described as a letter from her physician. ECF No. 97. However, it is unclear what filing, if any,

3

the document pertains to (i.e., a motion), and the court cannot determine which filing the

4

document is related to. Therefore, this request will be denied, and the document will not be

5

included on the court’s docket.

6

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

7

1. Plaintiff’s requests to seal exhibits (ECF Nos. 91 and 97) are denied;

8

2. Within seven days of the date of this order, plaintiff is directed to re-file partially

9
10
11
12

redacted versions of the following exhibits in accordance with Local Rule 140: ECF
Nos. 86-3 and 87-5; and
3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to unseal ECF No. 86-5.
DATED: July 31, 2013.

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3