Travis Unified School District v. Bell et al

Filing 7

ORDER signed by Senior Judge William B. Shubb on 6/12/17 ORDERING that the parties' request to seal all documents filed to date and redact defendants' full names from the caption 6 is DENIED.(Mena-Sanchez, L)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ----oo0oo---- 11 12 13 TRAVIS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, CIV. NO. 2:17-0808 WBS AC ORDER RE: STIPULATED REQUEST TO SEAL Plaintiff, 14 15 16 17 18 v. DONALD BELL and DEBRA BELL, individually and as parents on behalf of C.B., a minor, Defendants. 19 ----oo0oo---- 20 21 The court is in receipt of the parties’ stipulated 22 request to seal, which requests that “all documents filed to date 23 [in this action] be placed under seal” and the caption of this 24 action be redacted to identify defendants Donald and Debra Bell 25 only by their initials. 26 that such sealing and redaction are necessary to maintain the 27 confidential identity of C.B., defendants’ son. 28 (Docket No. 6.) The parties represent Local Rules 140 and 141 provide that documents filed 1 1 with the court may be sealed or redacted only with approval of 2 the court.1 3 permitted unless the Court has authorized the redaction.”); id. 4 141(a) (“Documents may be sealed only by written order of the 5 Court, upon the showing required by applicable law.”). 6 Circuit has held that a party seeking to seal or redact court 7 documents bears the burden of overcoming “a strong presumption in 8 favor of [public] access” to such documents. 9 County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). See E.D. Cal. L.R. 140(b) (“No . . . redactions are The Ninth Kamakana v. City & To 10 overcome that presumption, the party must “articulate compelling 11 reasons supported by specific factual findings” in favor of 12 sealing or redacting “that outweigh the general history of access 13 and the public policies favoring disclosure.” 14 (citation omitted). 15 Id. at 1178-79 The parties have not provided the court any “compelling 16 reasons” to seal “all documents filed to date” or redact 17 defendants’ full names from the case caption. 18 the parties’ concern about maintaining C.B.’s confidential 19 identity in this action, Local Rule 140(a) allows the parties to 20 refer to C.B. only by his initials, which they have already done 21 in the documents filed to date. 22 sealing “all documents filed to date” and redacting defendants’ 23 full names from the case caption are also necessary to maintain 24 C.B.’s confidential identity. With respect to The court is not persuaded that See Fresno Unified Sch. Dist. v. 25 26 27 28 1 Local Rule 140(a) provides a number of exceptions to the general rule requiring court approval for redactions. Other than the exception allowing for redaction of minors’ full names, see E.D. Cal. L.R. 140(a)(i), such exceptions do not apply to the present request. 2 1 K.U., No. 1:12-CV-01699 MJS, 2014 WL 346554, at *3 (E.D. Cal. 2 Jan. 30, 2014) (in “most” cases involving judicial review of an 3 administrative decision regarding a minor’s Free Appropriate 4 Public Education rights, “redacting the name of the minor child 5 to the child’s initials is sufficient”). 6 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the parties’ request to 7 seal all documents filed to date and redact defendants’ full 8 names from the case caption (Docket No. 6) be, and the same 9 hereby is, DENIED. 10 Dated: June 12, 2017 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

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?