Perez v. City of Roseville, et al

Filing 49

ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr. on 5/4/2015 GRANTING 47 Request for Order Allowing Redaction of Information. (Michel, G.)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

JANELLE PEREZ,

10
11
12
13
14
15

Plaintiff,
v.

Defendants.

17

19
20
21
22
23

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
REQUEST TO FILE REDACTED
DOCUMENTS

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

16

18

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

On May 1, 2015, Plaintiff submitted a proposed order
that would authorize redaction of certain documents referenced in
her opposition to Defendants‟ summary judgment motion. Plaintiff
asserts

in

the

proposed

order

that

the

good

cause

applies to her redaction request and refers to the referenced
documents

in

a

publicly

filed

Request

for

Order

Redaction as follows:

24
25
26
27
28

standard

a. Additional excerpts from the Deposition of
Daniel Hahn (Exhibit A to the Declaration of
Sean O‟Dowd);
b. Additional [e]xcerpts from the Deposition
of Stefan Moore (Exhibit G to the Declaration
of Sean O‟Dowd);
1

Allowing

1
2

c. Doe #3‟s field training evaluations,
specifically “Roseville 1077-1134” (Exhibit L
to the Declaration of Sean O‟Dowd).

3

(Pl.‟s Request Order Allowing Redaction of Information 2:3-8, ECF

4

No.

5

standard is the wrong standard to be applied

6

motion. Plaintiff has been informed in two previous orders that

7

that applicable standard requires “a party seeking to seal a

8

[document]

9

presented at trial [to] articulate „compelling reasons‟ in favor

10

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

11

(E.D. Cal. 2013) (emphasis added) (quoting Kamakana v. City and

12

Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 11172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006)). The

13

requested

14

reasons standard with the understanding that the name of the

15

individual referenced in what Plaintiff refers to as “Roseville

16

1077-1134,” is replaced with the pseudonym Doe #3. Plaintiff has

17

not shown how the individual or individuals referenced in what

18

Plaintiff refers to as “additional excerpts from the Deposition

19

of Daniel Hahn” and “additional excerpts from the Deposition of

20

Stefan Moore,” will be referenced, so this portion of the filing

21

needs clarification and it is Plaintiff‟s responsibility to make

22

the record pellucid. However, redacted copies of the documents

23

may be filed.

24

Dated:

47.)

Plaintiff

attached

redacted

should

to

a

filing

know

by

now

dispositive

is

motion

authorized

May 4, 2015

25
26
27
28
2

that

under

the

good

cause

to the pending

or

one

the

that

is

compelling