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

Filing 89

ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 7/13/15 DENYING the sealing request re: 80 Stipulation and Proposed Order. (Meuleman, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9
10

PASKENTA BAND OF NOMLAKI
INDIANS; and PASKENTA
ENTERPRISES CORPORATION,

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

Plaintiffs,
v.

No. 2:15-cv-00538-GEB-CMK

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’
SEALING REQUEST

INES CROSBY; JOHN CROSBY;
LESLIE LOHSE; LARRY LOHSE;
TED PATA; JUAN PATA; CHRIS
PATA; SHERRY MYERS; FRANK
JAMES; UMPQUA BANK; UMPQUA
HOLDINGS CORPORATION;
CORNERSTONE COMMUNITY BANK;
CORNERSTONE COMMUNITY
BANCORP; JEFFERY FINCK; GARTH
MOORE; HARTH MOORE INSURANCE
AND FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC.;
ASSOCIATED PENSION
CONSULTANTS, INC.; HANESS &
ASSOCIATES, LLC; ROBERT M.
HANESS; THE PATRIOT GOLD &
SILVER EXCHANGE, INC. and
NORMAN R. RYAN,
Defendants,
SILVER QUICKEN LOANS, INC.;
CRP 111 WEST 141ST LLC;
CASTELLAN MANAGING MEMBER
LLC; CRP WEST 168TH STREET
LLC; and CRP SHERMAN AVENUE
LLC,
Nominal
Defendants.

28
1

1

On July 10, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a Stipulation and

2

Proposed Sealing Order, in which Plaintiffs seek to have sealed

3

the documents in ECF No. 72-2, which consist of “the Declaration

4

of Brandin Paya in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion [and] . . . an

5

attached Exhibit A.” (Stipulation & Proposed Order (“Stip.”) 1:5-

6

6, ECF No. 80.) Plaintiffs state the referenced filing “failed to

7

redact certain private information, identifying information of

8

Defendants’,

9

addresses, dates of birth, and driver’s license numbers,” and

10

contend since this “identifying information . . . may be readily

11

accessed and used to perpetrate a criminal act,” the documents

12

should be sealed. (Id. 1:6-8; 1:12-13.)

including

full

social

security

numbers,

home

13

This sealing request is overbroad since Plaintiffs have

14

not shown why targeted redactions would be inadequate to protect

15

the referenced private information, nor have they provided such

16

redactions for the Court’s consideration. “[G]iven our strong

17

tradition of open court proceedings,” a sealing order “should

18

sweep no more broadly than necessary” to protect what is shown to

19

be deserving of secrecy; and “the district court [is required to]

20

consider alternatives to closure, such as redaction.” U.S. v.

21

Index Newspapers LLC, 766 F.3d 1072, 1095, 1096 (9th Cir. 2014).

22

Federal

Rule

of

Civil

Procedure

5.2(a)

authorized

23

Plaintiffs to redact, without obtaining a court order, portions

24

of the referenced social security numbers and the dates of birth

25

they seek to seal, but Plaintiffs have not shown that all of the

26

remaining portion of the sealing order they seek is a “closure

27

remedy [that] is narrowly confined to protect th[e] interest[s]”

28

sought to be protected from public disclosure. Perry v. City and
2

1

County of San Francisco, No. 10-16696, 2011 WL 2419868, at *21

2

(9th Cir. 2011).

3

Since Plaintiffs have not addressed why the privacy

4

interests

involved

in

their

sealing

5

protected by proposed specified redactions to ECF No. 72-2, the

6

sealing request is denied.

7

Dated:

July 13, 2015

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3

request

could

not

be