Doe v. City of San Mateo et al

Filing 396

ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO SEAL AND DEFENDANTS' EX PARTE APPLICATION TO FILE MOTION UNDER SEAL (SI, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/23/2010)

Doe v. City of San Mateo et al

Doc. 396

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 v. CITY OF SAN MATEO, et al. Defendants. / JANE DOE, Plaintiff, No. C 07-05596 SI ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO SEAL AND DEFENDANTS' EX PARTE APPLICATION TO FILE MOTION UNDER SEAL IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

On December 12, 2010, plaintiff filed an ex parte application to seal her deposition. Doc. 391. On December 15, 2010, defendants City of San Mateo, Shandon Murphy, Sgt. Perucci, and Joseph Yansuka ("City defendants") filed an ex parte application to file a motion for summary judgment under seal. Doc. 392. The City defendants explained that they did not believe that plaintiff's deposition needed to be sealed, since it does not contain plaintiff's true name and address, but agree that one of the exhibits supporting their motion did need to be filed under seal. Also on December 15, the City defendants filed a redacted motion for summary judgment that did not contain the exhibit and did not contain any citations to plaintiff's deposition testimony. Doc. 393. Other defendants in this case, Suzanne Blick, the County of San Mateo, and the San Mateo County Sheriff's Office ("County defendants"), filed a motion for summary judgment the same day, which was not redacted. Doc. 395. Because of the sensitive nature of this case, and because the deposition (which the Court does not have possession of) may contain certain identifying information other than plaintiff's true name and address, the Court GRANTS plaintiff's ex parte application. (Doc. 391.) The Court also GRANTS the City defendants' ex parte application. (Doc. 392.) Because it contains references to the deposition transcript the Court ORDERS that the County defendants' summary judgment motion, doc. 395, be

Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

sealed. This order is issued out of an abundance of caution. The parties should be aware that the Court intends to rule on the motions for summary judgment in an order that will be publically available. Additionally, if a trial is held, that trial will be conducted in open court. Finally, the Court reminds all defendants to be vigilant about filing any document containing plaintiff's name or address under seal. Two documents have been filed so far in what the Court assumes was an inadvertent violation of the Court's order, one by each set of defendants. See docs. 189, 390. The Court expects that no more violations will occur.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 23, 2010

SUSAN ILLSTON United States District Judge

2