Abuslin v. Contra Costa County et al

Filing 6

ORDER re 3 Motion to File Under Seal. Declaration and proposed redactions due 9/7/2017. Signed by Judge Maria-Elena James on 9/1/2017. (mejlc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/1/2017)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 JANE DOE, 7 Case No. 17-cv-04942-MEJ Plaintiff, 8 ORDER RE: ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL v. 9 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, et al., 10 Re: Dkt. No. 3 Defendants. United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 On August 29, 2017, Plaintiff Jane Doe filed an administrative motion to file under seal 13 14 her Application to Proceed under a Pseudonym. Mot., Dkt. No. 3; see id., Ex. 2 (Appl.). Plaintiff 15 argues the Application “contains sensitive personal information pertaining to” her. Mot. at 2. First, Plaintiff does not submit a declaration in support of her Motion to Seal. See Civ. 16 17 L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(A) (requiring motion to file under seal to “be accompanied by . . . [a] declaration 18 establishing that the document sought to be filed under seal, or portions thereof, are sealable.”).1 19 Second, Plaintiff’s request is not narrowly tailored. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(b) (“The request 20 must be narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material[.]”). Plaintiff seeks to seal the 21 Application in its entirety. See Mot. A review of the Application shows this is unnecessary. The 22 Court sees no reason to seal Plaintiff’s summary of the allegations in the publicly-filed Complaint 23 or her summary of the applicable case law. See Appl. at 2-3; see also Compl. ¶¶ 15-23, Dkt. No. 24 1. Absent a declaration showing why any of this information is sealable, the Court finds no basis 25 26 27 28 1 Even assuming Plaintiff’s unsupported Motion was sufficient, her argument that the Application “contains sensitive personal information” is conclusory. Plaintiff does not establish why the Application is entitled to protection under the law. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(b) (“A sealing order may issue only upon a request that establishes that the document, or portions thereof, are privileged, protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law[.]”). 1 2 to do so. No later than September 7, 2017, Plaintiff may file a declaration in support of her Motion 3 to Seal and propose narrowly tailored redactions to conform with Civil Local Rule 79-5. If she 4 fails to do so, her motion will be denied. Plaintiff’s declaration may not exceed five pages, 5 excluding declarations and exhibits. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 8 9 10 Dated: September 1, 2017 ______________________________________ MARIA-ELENA JAMES United States Magistrate Judge United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

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?