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)

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