Smith v. City of Stockton et al

Filing 84

ORDER signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 8/15/2017 GRANTING 81 Stipulation to Withdraw Exhibits; ORDERING that 80 Exhibits supersede the documents at ECF [69-3], 79 ; PERMITTING the complete redaction of the plaintiff's entire social security number as contained in 80 Exhibits; DIRECTING the Clerk of Court to seal the documents at ECF [69-3], 79 ; ORDERING all parties to comply with the provisions of this order. (Michel, G.)

1
2
3
4
5
6

DANA A. SUNTAG, (State Bar No. 125127)
JOSHUA J. STEVENS, (State Bar No. 238105)
HERUM\CRABTREE\SUNTAG
A California Professional Corporation
3757 Pacific Avenue, Suite 222
Stockton, California 95207
Telephone: [phone]/Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for All Defendants
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

NATHANIEL SMITH,
Plaintiff,

10
11
12
13
14

v.
CITY OF STOCKTON, OFFICER PATRICK
MAYER, OFFICER ROBIN HARRISON,
AND OFFICER MICHAEL PEREZ IN THEIR
INDIVIDUAL CAPACITIES; AND CHIEF OF
POLICE ERIC JONES, IN HIS OFFICIAL
AND INDIVIDUAL CAPACITIES,

15
16

Case No.: 2:15-CV-00363-KJM-AC

STIPULATION TO WITHDRAW
EXHIBITS FILED IN SUPPORT OF
DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR IN THE
ALTERNATIVE, REPLACE WITH
REDACTED COPIES; ORDER
[No hearing requested]

Defendants.

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
STIPULATION TO WITHDRAW EXHIBITS,
OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, REPLACE WITH REDACTED COPIES;
[PROPOSED] ORDER

1

Plaintiff NATHANIEL SMITH and Defendants CITY OF STOCKTON, OFFICERS

2

ROBIN HARRISON, PATRICK MAYER, and MICHAEL PEREZ, and CHIEF OF

3

POLICE ERIC JONES (collectively referred to as “Defendants”), by and through their

4

counsel of record, and subject to the approval of the Court, hereby stipulate as follows:

5

On June 16, 2017, Defendants initially filed their motion for summary judgment.

6

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment was withdrawn, and re-filed July 21, 2017

7

(collectively, “Defendants’ Motions”) with substantially the same exhibits. Defendants’

8

motion for summary judgment is set for hearing on August 25, 2017.

9

In later reviewing the documents e-filed in support of Defendants’ Motions,

10

Defendants’ counsel learned that certain exhibits were inadvertently filed containing

11

Plaintiff’s unredacted date(s) of birth and/or noting several potential social security

12

numbers. (See Doc. No. 69-3 and Doc. No. 79.)

13

The parties have since met and conferred and have agreed upon the following:

14

On July 26, 2017, Defendants’ counsel re-filed the exhibits in support of

15

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment with the exhibit pages appropriately

16

redacted. (See Doc. No. 80.) While Local Rule 140 requires that social security

17

numbers be redacted such that only the last four digits are visible, the Plaintiff’s social

18

security number has nothing to do with the instant case or Defendants’ motion for

19

summary judgment, and thus the parties request that the redaction of Plaintiff’s entire

20

social security number, as contained in Defendants’ re-filed exhibits (Doc. No. 80), be

21

permitted and approved by this Court.

22

As for the previously filed exhibits in support of Defendants’ Motions, the parties

23

request that the Court order either of the following remedies, consistent with whichever

24

approach would be most convenient and/or desirable for the Court:

25

1) Either completely withdraw the exhibits previously filed as document numbers

26

69-3 and 79, and remove them from the Court’s file in their entirety. Document 80 will

27

supersede document numbers 69-3 and 79 in support of Defendants’ motion for

28

summary judgment.
2
STIPULATION TO WITHDRAW EXHIBITS,
OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, REPLACE WITH REDACTED COPIES;
[PROPOSED] ORDER

1

2) In the alternative, the appropriately redacted pages are attached hereto as

2

Exhibits A, B, and C, and should be inserted as replacements to the unredacted exhibits

3

contained in document numbers 69-3 and 79, as follows:

4

(i)

Document Number 69-3:

5



Exhibit A shall replace Exhibit 1, p. 4 of 257.

6



Exhibit B shall replace Exhibit 3, p. 46 of 257.

7



Exhibit C shall replace Exhibit 14, pp. 178-182 of 257.

8

(ii)

Document Number 79:

9



Exhibit A shall replace Exhibit 1, p. 5 of 255.

10



Exhibit B shall replace Exhibit 3, p. 47 of 255.

11



Exhibit C shall replace Exhibit 14, pp. 179-183 of 255.

12

Based on the foregoing, in compliance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2

13

and Local Rule 140, the parties respectfully request that the Court take Document

14

Number 80 as the exhibits in support of Defendants’ motion for summary judgment,

15

superseding all previous filed exhibits, and permit the full redaction of Plaintiff’s entire

16

social security number. In addition, the parties request that the Court either remove

17

document numbers 69-3 and 79 from the record on file, or in the alternative, that the

18

Court insert the attached Exhibits A, B, and C where appropriate into document

19

numbers 69-3 and 79.

20

Respectfully Submitted,

21

Dated: July 26, 2017

22
23
24
25

Dated: July 26, 2017

HADSELL STORMER & RENICK LLP
By: /s/ - Lori Rifkin
Lori Rifkin
Attorney for Plaintiff
HERUM\CRABTREE\SUNTAG
By:

26
27
28
3
STIPULATION TO WITHDRAW EXHIBITS,
OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, REPLACE WITH REDACTED COPIES;
[PROPOSED] ORDER

/s/ - Joshua J. Stevens
Joshua J. Stevens
Attorney for All Defendants

1

ORDER

2

The Court, having considered the parties’ stipulation, and good cause appearing,

3

the Joint Stipulation to Withdraw Exhibits Filed in Support of Defendants’ Motion for

4

Summary Judgment and Replace With Redacted Copies, is GRANTED.

5
6
7
8
9
10

Document Number 80 shall supersede Document Numbers 69-3 and 79,
previously filed in support of Defendants’ motions for summary judgment.
The complete redaction of Plaintiff’s entire social security number(s), as
contained in Document Number 80, is hereby permitted.
The Court Clerk is hereby directed to seal Document Numbers 69-3 and 79 so
they are not available for public view.

11

All parties shall comply with the provisions of this order.

12

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13

DATED: August 15, 2017.

14
15

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
STIPULATION TO WITHDRAW EXHIBITS,
OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, REPLACE WITH REDACTED COPIES;
[PROPOSED] ORDER