Brown et al v. Alexander et al

Filing 26

ORDER by Judge Samuel Conti granting in part and denying in part 21 Donald Crocket's Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting in part and denying in part 23 County's Administrative Motion to File Under Seal (sclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/15/2013)

1
2
3
4
5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

9

BARRY BROWN, JENNIFER BROWN,
JANE DOE 1, and JANE DOE 2,
Plaintiffs,

10
11
12
13

v.
JON ALEXANDER, DEAN WILSON ED
FLESHMAN, JULIE CAIN, CINDY
SALATNAY, COUNTY OF DEL NORTE,
and DONALD CROCKET,

14
Defendants.
15

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 13-1451 SC
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART MOTIONS TO
SEAL

16
17

Defendants Jon Alexander, Dean Wilson, Ed Fleshman, Julie

18

Cain, Cindy Salatnay, and the County of Del Norte (collectively,

19

the "County Defendants") now move for an order permitting them to

20

file under seal: (1) their motion to dismiss, (2) their request for

21

judicial notice and attached exhibits, and (3) the Declaration of

22

William F. Mitchell re: Submission of State Court Protective

23

Orders.

24

similar motion by Defendant Donald Crocket ("Crocket") for

25

permission to file under seal: (1) his motion to dismiss, (2) his

26

request for judicial notice, and (3) the declaration of Dohn R.

27

Henion.

28

the Court issue an order sealing the entire case.

ECF No. 23 ("Cnty's Mot.").

ECF No. 21 ("Crocket Mot.").

Also before the Court is a

Crocket also requests that

1

The County's Motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, as

2

is Crocket's.

The parties may file under seal their request for

3

judicial notice and declarations, as well as the documents attached

4

thereto.

5

motions to dismiss is DENIED without prejudice.

6

Local Rule 79-5(a), sealing requests must be narrowly tailored, and

7

not all information contained in the parties' motions is privileged

8

or otherwise entitled to protection.

9

Crocket may re-file their administrative motions pursuant to Civil

However, the parties' request to file under seal their
Pursuant to Civil

The County Defendants and

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

10

Local Rule 79-5(c), which governs requests to file portions of

11

documents under seal.

12

redactions to the parties' respective motions to dismiss and

13

specifically explain why those redactions are necessary.

The administrative motions should propose

14

Crocket's request to seal the entire case is also DENIED.

15

Crocket has offered no authority that would support such a drastic

16

remedy.

17

entire case.

18

fact that almost all of the docket entries in this matter,

19

including the Complaint, have been available to the public since

20

the case was filed in April 2013.

Nor has he enunciated compelling reasons for sealing the
His request is conclusory and does not address the

21
22

IT IS SO ORDERED.

23
24
25

Dated:

August 15, 2013
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

26
27
28

2