Hicks v. City of Vallejo et al

Filing 78

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 4/12/16 ORDERING that Plaintiff's 2/18/16 motion for reconsideration 53 is granted in part and denied in part; and Paragraph number 6 of the 1/22/16 protective order is modified to read as follows: Should a party intend to file Confidential Material with the court, as an exhibit to a pleading or otherwise, that party must first notify all other parties (defendants through their attorneys or plaintiff pro se), in writing and file d with the court, no less than fourteen days before the intended filing date, giving any such party reasonable notice and an opportunity to apply to the court for an order to file the material under seal. No document shall be filed under seal unless a party secures a court order allowing the filing of a document under seal in accordance with the provisions of E.D. Local Rule 141. (Becknal, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

TYRONE EDWARD HICKS,

12
13
14
15

No. 2:14-cv-0669 CKD PS (TEMP)

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

CITY OF VALLEJO, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

Pending before the court is plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the court’s January

18

22, 2016 protective order. Specifically, plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the protective order’s

19

paragraph number 6 and paragraph number 10.

20
21
22
23

Paragraph number 6 provides that:
In the event that either party wishes to file Confidential Material
with the court, as an exhibit to a pleading or otherwise, the filing
party shall first seek an order to file under seal pursuant to Local
Rule 141. The Request to Seal Documents shall refer to this
stipulation and protective order.

24

(Dkt. No. 45 at 3.) Plaintiff argues that the responsibility for seeking an order to file documents

25

under seal should be the burden of defendants because it is defendants who wish to keep the

26

documents confidential. (Dkt. No. 53 at 4.) Plaintiff proposes instead that the party intending to

27

file confidential information first notify all other parties and then any party may request that the

28

documents be filed under seal. Plaintiff cites to Cathey v. City of Vallejo, et al., No. 2:14-cv1

1

1749 JAM AC PS (E.D. Cal. Dec. 4, 2015), in support of his argument. Defendants argue in

2

opposition simply that plaintiff has failed to make a showing that warrants reconsideration. (Dkt.

3

No. 67 at 3.)
In drafting paragraph number 6 it was the court’s intention that the requirement that

4
5

plaintiff first seek an order to file confidential material under seal would more quickly notify all

6

involved of plaintiff’s intention to file confidential material. The court anticipated that,

7

thereafter, if defendants agreed that such documents should be filed under seal, defendants would

8

argue in support of filing the documents under seal. In this regard, it was never the court’s

9

intention that plaintiff alone bear the burden of demonstrating that confidential material should be

10

filed under seal. Nor was it the court’s intention that a party would be prevented from filing a

11

document that the court found should not be filed under seal.
However, the court is persuaded by plaintiff’s argument and the decision in Cathey, that

12
13

plaintiff’s proposed alteration to paragraph number 6 more closely complies with the intentions of

14

the court. Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is granted as to this request.

15

With respect to paragraph number 10, that paragraph provides that:

16

Prior to the release of Confidential Material, defendants shall redact
any birth dates, social security numbers, driver’s license numbers
and home addresses, while providing plaintiff with a log containing
identifying numbers corresponding to the officer names that have
been redacted.

17
18
19

(Dkt. No. 45 at 10.) Plaintiff argues that the court entered with provision “without consideration

20

of arguments concerning whether the public interest outweighed . . . the non party police privacy

21

interest.” (Dkt. No. 53 at 5.) Plaintiff, however, offers no argument in support of

22

reconsideration. Moreover, the court has in fact balanced the public and private interests at issue

23

and finds that the balance of those interests tips overwhelmingly in favor of keeping private the

24

birth dates, social security numbers, driver’s license numbers and home addresses of these police

25

officers. Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is denied as to this request.

26

/////

27

/////

28

/////
2

1

CONCLUSION

2

For the reasons stated above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

3

1. Plaintiff’s February 18, 2016 motion for reconsideration (Dkt. No. 53) is granted in

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

part and denied in part; and
2. Paragraph number 6 of the January 22, 2016 protective order is modified to read as
follows:
Should a party intend to file Confidential Material with the court, as
an exhibit to a pleading or otherwise, that party must first notify all
other parties (defendants through their attorneys or plaintiff pro se),
in writing and filed with the court, no less than fourteen days before
the intended filing date, giving any such party reasonable notice and
an opportunity to apply to the court for an order to file the material
under seal. No document shall be filed under seal unless a party
secures a court order allowing the filing of a document under seal in
accordance with the provisions of E.D. Local Rule 141.
Dated: April 12, 2016

_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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

BVD/hicks0669.mot.recon.ord

28
3