Bruno v. Equifax Credit Information Services, LLC, et al.

Filing 331

ORDER signed by Senior Judge William B. Shubb on 3/20/2020 GRANTING #327 plaintiff's motion to seal Exhibit HHH [292-60] and redact lines 12-13 of page 21 of plaintiff's #292 memorandum in support of class certification. There is no need to formally "reopen" this case in order to grant such request. (Kastilahn, A) Modified on 3/23/2020 (Kastilahn, A).

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

----oo0oo----

11
12
13

DANIEL BRUNO, individually and
on behalf of others similarly
situated,
Plaintiff,

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

No. 2:17-cv-00327 WBS EFB

ORDER RE: MOTION FOR ORDER
RE-OPENING CASE FOR PURPOSE
OF GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
REQUEST TO SEAL DOCUMENTS

v.
EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES,
LLC; GENEVA FINANCIAL SERVICES,
INC.; MARK HASSAN; GENEVA
MOTORS, INC. d/b/a GENEVA
FINANCIAL SERVICES; ROBERT
MCGINLEY; KAMIES ELHOUTY; JOHN
MCGINLEY; ANDY MITCHELL; and
REBS SUPPLY, INC. d/b/a REBS
MARKETING, INC.;
Defendants.

22
----oo0oo----

23
24

On March 10, 2020, plaintiff filed a Motion for Order

25

Re-opening Case for Purpose of Granting Plaintiff’s Request to

26

Seal Documents.

27

were filed in connection with plaintiff’s motion for class

28

certification but were subject to a protective order and

(Docket No. 327.)

1

The documents at issue here

1

designated as “attorney’s eyes only” in a related case in the

2

U.S. District Court of the Western District of Texas, Bruno v.

3

Equifax Information Services, 1:18-cv-00774-LY.

4

requests that this case be reopened and one exhibit be sealed and

5

two lines of his brief in support of his motion for class

6

certification be redacted.

7

Plaintiff represents that the exhibit was inadvertently attached

8

to the class certification motion, and the information which he

9

now seeks to redact was inadvertently included in his memorandum

10

Plaintiff

(Docket Nos. 292-60 and 291).

in support of his class certification motion.

11

Pursuant to Local Rule 141(a), “[d]ocuments may be

12

sealed only by written order of the Court, upon the showing

13

required by applicable law.”

14

the document and information plaintiffs seeks to be sealed or

15

redacted were inadvertently disclosed by plaintiff, and appear to

16

be subject to a protective order in a related case, the court

17

concludes that plaintiff has presented “good cause” to rebut the

18

presumption in favor of public access.

19

County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1189 (9th Cir. 2006).

E.D. Cal. L.R. 141(a).

Given that

See Kamakana v. City &

20

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff’s Motion to seal

21

Exhibit HHH (Docket No. 292-60) and redact lines 12-13 of page 21

22

of plaintiff’s memorandum in support of class certification

23

(Docket No. 291) be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED. There is no

24

need to formally “reopen” this case in order to grant such

25

request.

26

Dated:

March 20, 2020

27
28
2