United States of America v. O'Connor et al

Filing 24

ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr. on 10/07/15 ORDERING that 22 Motion to Seal is DENIED; Clerk shall REMOVE [(19)] Declaration of Robert E. O'Connor and the unredacted exhibits from the docket. (Benson, A)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

8

Plaintiff,

9
10
11

No. 2:14-cv-02392-GEB-CMK

v.

ORDER

ROBERT E. and KAREN M.
O‟CONNOR,
Defendants.

12
13
14

On October 6, 2015, Defendants filed a motion to seal

15

documents, seeking “to seal the previously filed Declaration of

16

Robert E. O’Connor in Support of Opposition to Motion For Summary

17

Judgment and attached exhibits, Document Number 19 on the docket

18

in

19

document

20

necessary redactions being finalized.” (Defs.’ Sealing Mot. 1:23-

21

26,

22

attached

23

Defendants and third parties including complete social security

24

numbers,

25

public does not have an interest in the disclosure of the above-

26

described

27

“[f]urther[] . . . request that they be permitted to file a fully

28

redacted version of the Declaration[,]” arguing “th[e] filing

the

ECF

above-captioned
was

matter

inadvertently

No.

22.)

exhibits

birth

filed

Defendants
contain

dates,

private

(the
with

the

contend:

certain

and/or

“Declaration”),

1

without

this
all

“the

Declaration

and

private

information

of

financial

information.”

Court

as

(Id.

account

2:1-4.)

numbers.

The

Defendants

1

will not prejudice Plaintiff UNITED STATES, as it will be an

2

identical version of the original Declaration, filed and served

3

with the original opposition papers, except that it will redact

4

permissible information under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

5

5.2(a).” (Id. at 2:4-8.) Notwithstanding Defendants’ request to

6

file a redacted version, review of the docket reveals Defendants

7

already filed a redacted version of the Declaration and exhibits

8

in compliance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2(a) and

9

Local Rule 140(a) on October 6, 2015. (See ECF No. 23.)

10

Defendants’

sealing

request

is

denied.

However,

the

11

Clerk of the Court is directed to remove from the docket the

12

originally filed Declaration of Robert E. O’Connor in Support of

13

Defendants’

14

Judgment, (ECF No. 19), with the unredacted exhibits since they

15

contain

16

140(a). See CBS, Inc. v. United States Dist. Court for the Cent.

17

Dist. of Cal., 765 F.2d 823, 825-26 (9th Cir. 1985) (ordering

18

“improvidently

19

[docket]”).

20

Dated:

Opposition

information

to

Plaintiff’s

prohibited

filed”

by

document

October 7, 2015

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2

Rule

Motion

5.2(a)

“retracted

.

for

and

.

.

Summary

Local

from

Rule

the