Bjork v. County of Placer District Attorney's Office

Filing 63

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 8/11/2016 DENYING the Motion to Seal submitted by Megan Dean Marshall; DIRECTING the Clerk of Court to return said document, labeled "Confidential-Under Seal" (construed as a motion to seal), received on 8/10/2016 to Ms. Marshall, together with a copy of this order. (Michel, G.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

KARIN BJORK,

12

No. 2:14-cv-1983-MCE-EFB
Plaintiff,

13

v.

ORDER

14

COUNTY OF PLACER, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
On July 25, 2016, the court granted plaintiff’s motion to compel production of documents.

17
18

ECF No. 60. That order provided that third parties whose employment records would be

19

produced could, within 7 days, file objections to the production of their records. Id. at 2.
Third party Megan Dean Marshall filed a request for a thirty day extension of time (i.e.,

20
21

until August 30) to submit objections. ECF No. 61. The court granted the request in part, and

22

gave Ms. Marshall until August 12, 2016 to submit her objections. ECF No. 62. To date, no

23

objections have been filed with the court. However, on August 10, 2016, the court received a

24

document from Ms. Marshall, which was enclosed in an envelope labeled “Confidential-Only to

25

be opened by Judge Brennan.” The document itself is labeled “Confidential-Under Seal.” The

26

document is construed as a motion for a sealing order.

27

/////

28

/////
1

1

It is apparent that Ms. Marshall wishes to have this document filed in this case under seal.

2

She has not, however, complied with Local Rule 141, which sets for the procedures that must be

3

followed when requesting to file documents under seal. Nor does she address the standards

4

applicable to any request to file a document under seal. See Press-Enterprises Co. v. Superior

5

Court of Riverside, 464 U.S. 501, 509 (1984) (in determining whether a document should be

6

sealed, the court begins with a presumption of public access to court documents); Hagestad v.

7

Trafesser, 49 F.3d 1430, 1434 (9th Cir. 1995) (in deciding whether the presumption of access is

8

overcome, the court considers the “public interest in understanding the judicial process and

9

whether disclosure of the material could result in improper use of the material for scandalous or

10

libelous purposes or infringement upon trade secrets.”). Accordingly, the motion to file the

11

documents under seal is denied. The document will not be considered by the court, and the clerk

12

is directed to return it to Ms. Marshall, together with a copy of this order. See E.D. Cal. L.R.

13

141(e)(1).

14

DATED: August 11, 2016.

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2