Anheuser-Busch Companies, LLC et al v. Clark

Filing 10

ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr., on 3/8/13 ORDERING that plaintiff's 8 sealing request is DENIED. However, the Clerk is directed to REMOVE from the docket Exhibits A and B to the Complaint, ECF Nos. 1-1 and 1-2. (Kastilahn, A)

1
2
3
4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7
8
9

ANHEUSER-BUSCH COMPANIES, LLC, a
Delaware limited liability
company, and ANHEUSER-BUSCH,
LLC, a Missouri limited
liability company,

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

Plaintiffs,

10
v.

11
12

JAMES ALAN CLARK, an individual,

13

Defendant.
________________________________

2:13-cv-00415-GEB-CKD
ORDER

14
15

Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Request to Seal Documents on

16

March 7, 2013, requesting “the sealing of original Exhibits A and

17

B . . . to the Complaint . . . filed on March 1, 2013.” (Pls.’ Req. to

18

Seal 1:2-5, ECF No. 8). Plaintiffs state in the Notice:
These original Exhibits A and B inadvertently both
contained Defendant James Alan Clark’s full Social
Security number instead of having it redacted under
Local
Rule
140(a)(iii).
This
Request
seeks
permanent sealing of original Exhibits A and
B . . . . The documents to be sealed (Docket Nos.
1-1 and 1-2) have already been e-filed but are
restricted to court personnel access only and have
been e-mailed to Judge Burrell pursuant to Local
Rule 141(b). The Request, the proposed order, and
documents are being served on counsel for Defendant
Clark.

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

Id. at 2:5-12.
Plaintiffs’ statements connote it is the Court’s obligation to

27
28

redact

personal

identifiers

from

1

parties’

pleadings,

which

is

a

1

misstatement of the Local Rule. Both Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

2

5.2(a) and Local Rule 140(a) impose the obligation to redact certain

3

personal identifying information contained in filings on the filer, not

4

the Court.

5

Further, Plaintiffs have evidently placed the Clerk of the

6

Court in the awkward position of having to respond to their counsel’s

7

inquiry regarding temporarily remedying Plaintiffs’ violation of these

8

privacy rules by having the Clerk restrict public access to the exhibits

9

until Plaintiffs could file the instant request, which invokes sealing

10

procedures. It is understandable that the Clerk’s Office responded to

11

Plaintiffs’

12

documents, which contained an individual’s full social security number.

13

Plaintiffs’ sealing request is denied. However, the Clerk of

14

the Court is directed to remove from the docket Exhibits A and B to the

15

Complaint, ECF Nos. 1-1 and 1-2, respectively, since they contain

16

identifying information prohibited by Rule 5.2(a) and Local Rule 140(a).

17

See CBS, Inc. v. United States Dist. Court for the Cent. Dist. of Cal.,

18

765 F.2d 823, 825-26 (9th Cir. 1985) (ordering “improvidently filed”

19

document removed from the record and returned to the offering party);

20

see also Fine v. Cambridge Int’l Sys., Inc., No. 12cv165 WQH (BGS), 2012

21

WL 2871656, at *2 (S.D. Cal. July 11, 2012) (referencing that motion

22

containing information in violation of Rule 5.2 had been “removed from

23

the docket”).

24

Dated:

counsel’s

communication

by

temporarily

sealing

March 8, 2013

25
26
27

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.
Senior United States District Judge

28
2

the