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)

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