Lopez v. Pre-employ.com, Inc.

Filing 36

ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 8/7/2018 GRANTING in PART and DENYING in PART 27 Second Notice of Request to Seal Documents in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment. Accordingly, the Court hereby GRANTS Defendant's Se cond Notice of Request to Seal Documents as to personally identifying or sensitive information in the documents and DENIES the Request as to public records information in the documents. Defendant shall file new versions of these documents that have been redacted in conformity with this Order. (York, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ANTONIO A. LOPEZ,

12
13
14
15

No. 2:16-cv-02205-TLN-KJN

Plaintiff,
v.
PRE-EMPLOY.COM, INC.,
Defendant.

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT’S
SECOND REQUEST TO SEAL
DOCUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF ITS
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

16
17
18

This matter in before the Court pursuant to Defendant Pre-Employ.Com., Inc.’s

19

(“Defendant”) Second Notice of Request to Seal Documents in support of Defendant’s Motion for

20

Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 27.) Plaintiff Antonio A. Lopez (“Plaintiff”) has not responded.

21

Defendant asks the Court to redact and file under seal three Exhibits, U, Z, and II, affixed to

22

Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 24 at 1–2.) The Exhibits contain three

23

types of information: personally identifying information such as social security numbers,

24

sensitive information such as birth dates, and public records. (ECF No. 24 at 1–2.)

25

There is a “strong presumption in favor of access” to judicial records. Kamakana v. City

26

& Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mutual

27

Auto. Insurance Company, 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). The party seeking to seal

28

records attached to dispositive pleadings “must articulate compelling reasons to seal supported by
1

1

specific factual findings” sufficient to “outweigh the general history of access and the public

2

policies favoring disclosure.” Id. at 1178–79 (citing Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1135; San Jose Mercury

3

News, Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 187 F.3d 1096, 1102–03 (9th Cir.1999)). “The mere fact that the

4

production of records may lead to a litigant's embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further

5

litigation will not, without more, compel the court to seal its records.” Id. at 1179.

6

Defendant requests the Court seal documents which contain personally identifying and

7

sensitive information. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2 requires a party to redact certain

8

identifying and sensitive information from a filing, such as full social security numbers and birth

9

dates. Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2(a). Defendant has shown compelling reasons to redact personally

10

identifying and sensitive information and to file the exhibits under seal.

11

Defendant also requests the Court seal documents which contain information from public

12

records. Defendant has not argued the information should be redacted or the documents sealed.

13

Rather, Defendant has described the information as “public records” and stated it believes

14

Plaintiff put these records at issue by filing this suit. (ECF No. 27 at 1.) Further, Defendant

15

referred the Court to Plaintiff for any further briefing on this issue, arguing Plaintiff bears the

16

burden in this matter.1 (Def. Second Request to Seal Documents at 2.) Plaintiff has not filed any

17

response or argument on this issue. Defendant has not shown compelling reasons to redact or seal

18

documents related to the public records attached to its motion for summary judgment.

19

Accordingly, the Court hereby GRANTS Defendant’s Second Notice of Request to Seal

20

Documents as to personally identifying or sensitive information in the documents and DENIES

21

the Request as to public records information in the documents, (ECF No. 27). Defendant shall

22

file new versions of these documents that have been redacted in conformity with this Order.

23
24

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 7, 2018

25
26
27
28

Troy L. Nunley
United States District Judge

“To the extent the Court requests any further argument on the matter, Pre-employ submits that Plaintiff has
the burden to demonstrate the Court should seal information about public records. As such, Pre-employ requests that
the Court direct any order regarding further briefing, if needed, towards the Plaintiff.” (Def. Second Request to Seal
Documents at 2.)
1

2