Paskenta Band of Nomlaki Indians et al v. Crosby et al

Filing 457

STIPULATION and ORDER signed by District Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. on 07/17/18 ORDERING that the Clerk is to REMOVE Dkt. Nos. 67-3, 67-4, 72-8, and 73-3 from the case file. Plaintiffs may file redacted copies of Dkt. Nos. 67-3, 67-4, 72-8, and 73-3. (Benson, A.)

1
2
3
4
5
6

STUART G. GROSS (#251019)
[e-mail]
BENJAMIN H. KLEIN (#313922)
[e-mail]
GROSS & KLEIN LLP
The Embarcadero
Pier 9, Suite 100
San Francisco, CA 94111
t [phone]
f [phone]

JOSEPH R. SAVERI (#130064)
[e-mail]
KEVIN E. RAYHILL (#267496)
[e-mail]
JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM, INC.
555 Montgomery Street, Suite 1210
San Francisco, CA 94111
t [phone]
f [phone]

7
8

Attorneys for Plaintiffs the Paskenta Band of Nomlaki Indians
and the Paskenta Enterprises Corporation

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
PASKENTA BAND OF NOMLAKI INDIANS;
and PASKENTA ENTERPRISES
CORPORATION,
Plaintiffs,
v.
INES CROSBY; et al.
Defendants,

CASE NO.: 2:15-cv-00538-MCECMK
STIPULATION AND ORDER
REGARDING PROPOSED
REDACTIONS TO DOCKET NOS.
67-3, 67-4, 72-8, AND 73-3

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
GROSS LAW, P.C.
THE EMBARCADERO
PIER 9, SUITE 100
SAN FRANCISCO, CA
94111

____________________________________________________________________________________________
STIPULATION AND ORDER REGARDING PROPOSED REDACTIONS TO DOCKET NOS. 67-3, 67-4, 72-8, AND 73-3;
Case No. 2:15-cv-00538-MCE-CMK

1

WHEREAS, on June 16, 2015, the Paskenta Band of Nomlaki Indians and Paskenta

2

Enterprises Corporation (“Plaintiffs”) filed the Declaration of Natasha Magana in Support of

3

Plaintiffs’ Opposition to RICO Defendants’ Motion to Stay or in Alternative Dismiss Pending

4

Arbitration and Plaintiffs’ Counter-Motion to Stay the Arbitration, Dkt. No. 67-3, Exhibits J and

5

K of which were, due to an oversight by Plaintiffs, filed without redacting certain private,

6

identifying information of third parties, including full social security numbers, dates of birth,

7

financial account numbers, driver’s license numbers, and children’s names;

8
9

WHEREAS, on June 16, 2015, Plaintiffs filed the Declaration of Ambrosia Rico in
Support of Plaintiffs’ Opposition to RICO Defendants’ Motion to Stay or in Alternative Dismiss

10

Pending Arbitration and Plaintiffs’ Counter-Motion to Stay the Arbitration, Dkt. No. 67-4,

11

Exhibits E through J of which, according to Plaintiffs, were filed without redacting certain

12

private, identifying information of Plaintiffs and Defendants, including financial account

13

numbers, due to an oversight by Plaintiffs;

14

WHEREAS, on June 29, 2015, Plaintiffs filed the Declaration of Stuart G. Gross in

15

Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, Dkt. No. 72-8, Exhibit H of which,

16

according to Plaintiffs, was filed without redacting certain private, identifying information of

17

Plaintiffs and third parties, including financial account numbers, due to an oversight by

18

Plaintiffs;

19

WHEREAS, on June 29, 2015, Plaintiffs filed the Declaration of Stuart G. Gross in

20

Support of Plaintiffs’ Opposition to (1) The RICO Defendants’ Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(B)(1) Motion

21

to Dismiss; (2) The Umpqua Defendants’ Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(B)(6) Motion to Dismiss; (3) The

22

Cornerstone Defendants’ Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(B)(6) Motion to Dismiss; (4) APC’s Fed. R. Civ. P.

23

12(B)(6) Motion to Dismiss and 12(F) Motion to Strike; (5) The Haness Defendants’ Fed. R.

24

Civ. P. 12(B)(6) Motion to Dismiss; and (6) the Moore Defendants’ Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(B)(6)

25

Motion to Dismiss, Dkt. No. 73-3, Exhibits B through F of which were, according to Plaintiffs,

26

filed without redacting certain private, identifying information of Defendants, including dates of

27

birth, due to an oversight by Plaintiffs;

28
GROSS LAW, P.C.
THE EMBARCADERO
PIER 9, SUITE 100
SAN FRANCISCO, CA
94111

____________________________________________________________________________________________
STIPULATION AND ORDER REGARDING PROPOSED REDACTIONS TO DOCKET NOS. 67-3, 67-4, 72-8, AND 73-3;
Case No. 2:15-cv-00538-MCE-CMK
1

1
2

WHEREAS, Civil Local Rule 140 requires the redaction of such identifying
information;

3

WHEREAS, all information filed with the Court is of public record;

4

WHEREAS, the identifying information contained in Dkt. Nos. 67-3, 67-4, 72-8, and

5
6
7
8
9
10

73-3, may be readily accessed and used to perpetrate a criminal act;
WHEREAS, the parties are in full agreement that the confidential identifying
information should be prevented from public access;
WHEREAS, the following redactions have been made to Dkt. No. 67-3, a copy of which
is submitted herewith as Exhibit 1:
1.

security numbers have been redacted;

11
12

On page 1 of Exhibit J, a third party’s financial account numbers and social

2.

On page 2 of Exhibit J, third parties’ social security numbers and dates of birth,
and children’s names have been redacted;

13
14

3.

On page 1 of Exhibit K, a third party’s social security number has been redacted;

15

4.

On page 5 of Exhibit K, a third party’s driver’s license number has been
redacted;

16
17
18
19

WHEREAS, the following redactions have been made to Dkt. No. 67-4, a copy of which
is submitted herewith as Exhibit 2:
1.

been redacted;

20
21

2.

3.

4.

On page 1 of Exhibit H, Plaintiffs’ and Defendant Larry Lohse’s financial
account numbers have been redacted;

26
27

On pages 1 and 2 of Exhibit G, Plaintiffs’ financial account numbers have been
redacted;

24
25

On pages 1 and 2 of Exhibit F, Plaintiffs’ financial account numbers have been
redacted;

22
23

On pages 1 through 4 of Exhibit E, Plaintiffs’ financial account numbers have

5.

On page 1 of Exhibit I, Plaintiffs’ and Defendant Larry Lohse’s financial account

28
GROSS LAW, P.C.
THE EMBARCADERO
PIER 9, SUITE 100
SAN FRANCISCO, CA
94111

____________________________________________________________________________________________
STIPULATION AND ORDER REGARDING PROPOSED REDACTIONS TO DOCKET NOS. 67-3, 67-4, 72-8, AND 73-3;
Case No. 2:15-cv-00538-MCE-CMK
2

numbers have been redacted;

1
2

6.

3

WHEREAS, the following redactions have been made to Dkt. No. 72-8, a copy of which

4
5

is submitted herewith as Exhibit 3:
1.

8
9

WHEREAS, the following redactions have been made to Dkt. No. 73-3, a copy of which
is submitted herewith as Exhibit 4:
1.

2.

3.

4.

On page 16 of Exhibit E, Defendants John Crosby, Ines Crosby, Leslie Lohse,
Larry Lohse, and Sherry Myers’ dates of birth have been redacted;

16
17

On page 20 of Exhibit D, Defendants John Crosby, Ines Crosby, Leslie Lohse,
Larry Lohse, and Sherry Myers’ dates of birth have been redacted;

14
15

On pages 17 and 40 of Exhibit C, Defendants John Crosby, Ines Crosby, Leslie
Lohse, Larry Lohse, and Sherry Myers’ dates of birth have been redacted;

12
13

On pages 19 and 41 of Exhibit B, Defendants John Crosby, Ines Crosby, Leslie
Lohse, Larry Lohse, and Sherry Myers’ dates of birth have been redacted;

10
11

On pages 1, 10, and 19 of Exhibit H, Plaintiffs’ and third parties’ financial
account numbers have been redacted.

6
7

On page 1 of Exhibit J, Plaintiffs’ financial account numbers have been redacted.

5.

On page 15 of Exhibit F, Defendants John Crosby, Ines Crosby, Leslie Lohse,
Larry Lohse, and Sherry Myers’ dates of birth have been redacted;

18
19
20
21

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED, by and between Plaintiffs and Defendants, by and

22

through their respective counsel, pursuant to 5.2(a) and Civil Local Rules 140 and 143, and

23

subject to approval by the Court, that:

24

1.

case file; and

25
26
27

The Clerk is instructed to remove Dkt. Nos. 67-3, 67-4, 72-8, and 73-3 from the

2.

Plaintiffs may file the attached redacted copies of Dkt. Nos. 67-3, 67-4, 72-8, and
73-3.

28
GROSS LAW, P.C.
THE EMBARCADERO
PIER 9, SUITE 100
SAN FRANCISCO, CA
94111

____________________________________________________________________________________________
STIPULATION AND ORDER REGARDING PROPOSED REDACTIONS TO DOCKET NOS. 67-3, 67-4, 72-8, AND 73-3;
Case No. 2:15-cv-00538-MCE-CMK
3

1
2

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED:

3
4
5

DATED: July 17, 2018

GROSS & KLEIN LLP

6

By:

7

/s/

______________
Stuart G. Gross
Attorneys for Plaintiffs PASKENTA BAND
OF NOMLAKI INDIANS and PASKENTA
ENTERPRISES CORPORATION

8
9
10
11
12

DATED: July 17, 2018

13

KEKER, VAN NEST & PETERS LLP
By:

/s/ (authorized 7/10/18)

14

______________

Benedict Yung Hur
Erin E. Meyer
Attorneys for Defendants INES CROSBY,
JOHN CROSBY, LESLIE LOHSE, LARRY
LOHSE, TED PATA, JUAN PATA, CHRIS
PATA, SHERRY MYERS, and FRANK
JAMES,

15
16
17
18
19
20
21

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 17, 2018

22
23
24

.

25
26
27
28
GROSS LAW, P.C.
THE EMBARCADERO
PIER 9, SUITE 100
SAN FRANCISCO, CA
94111

____________________________________________________________________________________________
STIPULATION AND ORDER REGARDING PROPOSED REDACTIONS TO DOCKET NOS. 67-3, 67-4, 72-8, AND 73-3;
Case No. 2:15-cv-00538-MCE-CMK
4