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)

Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?