Armstrong, et al v. Davis, et al

Filing 2059

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken GRANTING 2053 MOTION AND 2055 STIPULATION TO FILE UNDER SEAL. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/17/2012)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4

JOHN ARMSTRONG, et al.,

5
6
7
8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

No. C 94-2307 CW

Plaintiffs,

ORDER GRANTING
MOTION AND
STIPULATION TO
FILE UNDER SEAL
(Docket Nos. 2053
and 2055)

v.
EDMUND G. BROWN, JR., et al.,
Defendants.
________________________________/

On May 10, 2012, Defendants filed an amended administrative

11

motion seeking to file under seal unredacted versions of their

12

appendix of evidentiary objections, the declarations of M. Mayes,

13

D. Zanchi, A. Favila, S. Aref, C. Ramirez, J. Cutillo, V. Cullen,

14

J. Cazavos, S. Chapman, S. Cheney, G. Jaime, T. Miguel, J. Blim,

15

R. Sweeny, D. Fischer, G. Stratton, S. Smith, M. Overstreet, C.

16

Arthur, J. Curzon, R. Binkele, and R. Nipper, and the exhibits

17

attached to these declarations.

18

in support of their opposition to Plaintiffs’ request for an order

19

to show cause and motion to hold Defendants in contempt.

20

parties also filed an amended stipulation agreeing that the

21

unredacted documents should be filed under seal.

22

represent that these documents contain personal information of

23

inmates, including their names and CDCR numbers.

24

further stipulate that redacted versions of these documents, in

25

which any information identifying an inmate is omitted, will be

26

filed in the public record.

27
28

Defendants offer these documents

The

The parties

The parties

Because the public interest favors filing all court documents
in the public record, any party seeking to file a document under

1

seal must demonstrate good cause to do so.

2

Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010).

3

be established simply by showing that the document is subject to a

4

protective order or by stating in general terms that the material

5

is considered to be confidential, but rather must be supported by

6

a sworn declaration demonstrating with particularity the need to

7

file each document under seal.

8
9

Pintos v. Pac.
This cannot

See Civil Local Rule 79-5(a).

The parties have provided reasons supporting the sealing of
the unredacted documents.

Accordingly, Defendants’ motion for

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

leave to file under seal and the parties’ stipulation authorizing

11

sealing are GRANTED (Docket Nos. 2053 and 2055).

12

of the date of this Order, Defendants shall electronically file

13

under seal unredacted versions of their appendix of evidentiary

14

objections, the declarations of M. Mayes, D. Zanchi, A. Favila, S.

15

Aref, C. Ramirez, J. Cutillo, V. Cullen, J. Cazavos, S. Chapman,

16

S. Cheney, G. Jaime, T. Miguel, J. Blim, R. Sweeny, D. Fischer, G.

17

Stratton, S. Smith, M. Overstreet, C. Arthur, J. Curzon, R.

18

Binkele, and R. Nipper, and the exhibits attached to these

19

declarations, and shall file redacted versions of these documents

20

in the public record.

21

Within four days

IT IS SO ORDERED.

22
23
24

Dated: 5/17/2012

CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge

25
26
27
28
2