Hammers v. County of Sacramento et al
Filing
7
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 1/4/16 ORDERING that the parties shall refile a revised stipulation and proposed protective order that corrects the deficiencies set forth in this order; and If, upon further consideration, the parties determine that there is no need for a court order due to a private agreement between them, they shall withdraw their stipulation and proposed protective order. (Becknal, R)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
JOSLYNN HAMMERS, et al.,
12
13
14
15
No. 2:15-cv-01800-KJM-AC
Plaintiffs,
v.
ORDER
COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, et al.,
Defendants.
16
17
This matter is before the undersigned pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(1). Plaintiffs have
18
filed a stipulated protective order that would cover documents related to a juvenile court
19
proceeding. The stipulated protective order states, in relevant part, that “[i]f juvenile case file
20
records (includes both Court records and records produced by the parties) are attached to a
21
document filed or submitted to the court in the civil case, such records should be filed under seal
22
in accordance with the Eastern District local rules.” ECF No. 5-1 at 4. To the extent this
23
proposed order creates an entitlement to file confidential information under seal, it is improper.
24
The court’s Local Rule 141 sets forth the requirements for a party seeking to file
25
documents under seal. Local Rule 141(a) states that “[d]ocuments may be sealed only by written
26
order of the Court, upon the showing required by applicable law.” A Court order is required for
27
each sealing request. “To ensure that documents are properly sealed, specific requests to seal
28
must be made even if an existing protective order, statute, or rule requires or permits the sealing
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
of the document.” L.R. 141(a).
Local Rule 141(b) sets forth the procedure for seeking to file documents under seal and
states in pertinent part:
[T]he ‘Notice of Request to Seal Documents’ shall be filed
electronically . . . The Notice shall describe generally the
documents sought to be sealed, the basis for sealing, the manner in
which the ‘Request to Seal Documents,’ proposed order, and the
documents themselves were submitted to the Court, and whether
the Request, proposed order, and the documents were served on all
other parties.
8
Rule 141(b) further requires that “[t]he ‘Request to Seal Documents’ shall set forth the statutory
9
or other authority for sealing, the requested duration, the identity, by name or category, of persons
10
permitted access to the documents, and all other relevant information.”
11
In light of the foregoing instructions, which specifically require that motions to seal be
12
filed even in the face of an existing protective order, the court finds the stipulated protective order
13
to be procedurally improper and in violation of Local Rule 141. If the parties wish to file certain
14
documents under seal they must make a motion showing such an order is appropriate under the
15
applicable law. Accordingly, THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS that:
16
1. The parties shall refile a revised stipulation and proposed protective order that corrects
17
the deficiencies set forth in this order; and
18
2. If, upon further consideration, the parties determine that there is no need for a court
19
order due to a private agreement between them, they shall withdraw their stipulation and
20
proposed protective order.
21
DATED: January 4, 2016
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?