Perez v. City of Roseville, et al

Filing 44

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S SEALING REQUEST signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 4/28/15. (Kaminski, H)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

JANELLE PEREZ,

8
9
10
11
12
13
14

No. 2:13-cv-02150-GEB-DAD

Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF ROSEVILLE; ROSEVILLE
POLICE DEPARTMENT; CHIEF
DANIEL HAHN, an individual;
CAPTAIN STEPHAN MOORE, an
individual; and LIEUTENANT
CAL WALSTAD, an individual;

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
SEALING REQUEST

Defendants.

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

On April 27, 2015, Plaintiff filed a Request to Seal
Documents, in which she states in relevant part as follows:
On January 21, 2015, this Court entered
a Protective Order (Doc. #20) which barred
from
public
dissemination
any
personnel
information of individuals “who are or were
City employees and who are not parties to
this lawsuit.” Based on that definition,
Plaintiff believes portions of the materials
she intends to submit in opposition to
Defendants‟ Motion for Summary Judgment fall
under the rules and guidelines for submitting
documents under seal.
Thus, Plaintiff respectfully requests
this Court file the following documents
(which
are
attached
to
the
supporting
declaration of Sean D. O‟Dowd in Opposition
to Defendants‟ Motion for Summary Judgment,
submitted herewith) under seal:
a.

Excerpts from Volume II of the
Deposition of Daniel Hahn;
1

1

b.
c.

3
4
5
6

These documents are consecutively
paginated from 1-70.

The
aforementioned
documents
are
requested to be sealed pursuant to the
Eastern District of California Local Rule 140
(Privacy Concerns and Redaction) and 141
(Sealing of Documents), as well as Fed. R.
Civ. P. 5.2 (Privacy Protection for Filing
Made with the Court).

7
8
9
10

Certain documents produced by
Defendants, specifically,
“Roseville 1077-1134.”

3.

2

Excerpts from Volume II of the
Deposition of Stefan Moore

(Pl.‟s Req. Seal, ECF No. 42.)
Plaintiff

11

neither

“e-mailed

to

the

[undersigned]

12

Judge[‟s] . . . proposed orders e-mail box[,]” nor “submitted on

13

paper to the Clerk” the documents sought to be sealed for in

14

camera review as prescribed in Local Rule 141(b). Also, Plaintiff

15

filed on the public docket portions of Daniel Hahn and Stefan

16

Moore‟s depositions in support of her opposition. Therefore, it

17

is unclear whether Plaintiff desires to have sealed what she has

18

already publically filed or whether Plaintiff seeks to file under

19

seal

20

depositions.

additional

Further,

21

standard

portions

Plaintiff
in

her

of

the

neither
Request

referenced

discusses
Seal

the

applicable

22

sealing

23

demonstrates that it has been met. See E.D. Cal. 141(b) (“The

24

„Request to Seal Documents‟ shall set forth the statutory or

25

other authority for sealing . . . .”). “[A] party seeking to seal

26

a [document] attached to a dispositive motion or one that is

27

presented at trial must articulate „compelling reasons‟ in favor

28

of sealing.” Williams v. U.S. Bank Ass‟n, 290 F.R.D. 600, 604
2

to

individuals‟

Documents,

nor

1

(E.D. Cal. 2013) (quoting Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of Honolulu,

2

447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006)).

3

[Plaintiff] cannot provide the compelling
reasons necessary to justify the . . .
sealing of [the referenced documents] with a
few generalized, sweeping sentences. [She]
needed (and failed) to specifically address
why each document contained . . . information
of such a compelling nature as to overcome
the strong presumption of public access.

4
5
6
7
8

In re LDK Solar Secs. Litig., No. C 07-05182 WHA, 2010 WL 724809,

9

at *1 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 1, 2010).

10

For the stated reasons, Plaintiff‟s sealing request is

11

DENIED.

12

Dated:

April 28, 2015

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