Fotinos v. Fotinos et al

Filing 83

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken GRANTING PLAINTIFFS 48 MOTION TO SEAL, STRIKING IMPROPERLY FILED 47 DOCUMENT AND DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO REVIEW ALL DOCUMENTS ON THE DOCKET. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/19/2013)

1
2
3
4
5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

MICHELE FOTINOS, on behalf of
herself and as Guardian ad Litem
for her minor children, R.F. and
A.F.,
Plaintiff,

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

v.
JOHN FOTINOS; DAWN GROVER; RENEE
LA FARGE; BONNIE MILLER; KAMALA
HARRIS, Attorney General; JAYNE
KIM, Chief Trial Counsel, State
Bar of California; ROBYN PITTS,
City of Belmont Police Officer;
MARK REED, San Mateo County
Deputy Sheriff; PATRICK CAREY,
San Mateo County Deputy Sheriff;
SHANNON MORGAN; CITY OF BELMONT;
COUNTY OF SAN MATEO; and RENEE
LAFARGE,

No. C 12-953 CW
ORDER GRANTING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
TO SEAL (Docket
No. 48), STRIKING
IMPROPERLY FILED
DOCUMENT (Docket
No.47) AND
DIRECTING
PLAINTIFF TO
REVIEW ALL
DOCUMENTS ON THE
DOCKET

Defendant.
________________________________/
On May 24, 2012, Plaintiff Michele Fotinos filed a response

22

to Defendant Attorney General Kamala Harris’s motion to dismiss

23

and an ex parte application to file the response out of time.

24

Docket Nos. 43 and 44.

25

struck those documents and their supporting exhibits because they

26

contained the full name of Plaintiff’s minor child, R.F. and other

27

personally identifying and sensitive information related to R.F.

28

Docket No. 45.

In an order dated May 25, 2012, the Court

The Court permitted Plaintiff to re-file redacted

1

versions of the documents in the public record, and a motion to

2

file under seal undredacted versions of the documents.

3

Plaintiff has attempted to comply with the Court’s order.

4

She has filed an administrative motion to file Exhibit 3 under

5

seal and has lodged a copy of that document with the Court.

6

Because the public interest favors filing all court documents in

7

the public record, any party seeking to file a document under seal

8

must demonstrate good cause to do so.

9

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

Pintos v. Pac. Creditors
This cannot be

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

established simply by showing that the document is subject to a

11

protective order or by stating in general terms that the material

12

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

13

a sworn declaration demonstrating with particularity the need to

14

file each document under seal.

15

Having reviewed Exhibit 3, the Court finds that Plaintiff has

16

demonstrated good cause for the document to be filed under seal.

17

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to file under

18

seal (Docket No. 48).

19

See Civil Local Rule 79-5(a).

Plaintiff has also filed purportedly redacted versions of the

20

response to Defendant Harris’s motion to dismiss and Exhibits 1,

21

2, 4 and 5 to the motion to dismiss1 in the public record.

22

However, Plaintiff has not effectively redacted information from

23
24
25
26
27
28

1

The Court notes that Plaintiff has filed several exhibits
in support of her filings without an affidavit or declaration
authenticating those exhibits as required by Civil Local Rule 7-5.
The Court did not rely on any of those exhibits in its decisions
thus far. However, counsel is admonished to ensure that all
future filings comply with all Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
and Civil Local Rules.
2

1

the exhibits she filed in the public record.

2

used a pen to cross out the first names of Plaintiff’s children.

3

The pen markings are not thorough, and the text underneath is easy

4

to read.

5

another minor, and Exhibit 5 has not been redacted.

6

further failed to file an administrative motion to file under seal

7

unredacted versions of the motion to dismiss and Exhibits 1, 2, 4

8

and 5 or to lodge unredacted versions of these documents with the

9

Court.

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

It appears that she

In addition, Exhibit 1 contains the full first name of
Plaintiff has

Within seven days of the date of this Order, Plaintiff shall

11

file an administrative motion to file the relevant portions of the

12

response to Defendant Harris’s motion to dismiss and related

13

exhibits under seal, lodge her unredacted response to Defendant

14

Harris’s motion to dismiss and exhibits with the Court and file

15

properly redacted versions of the response and exhibits in the

16

public record.

17

California has posted helpful information about redaction on its

18

public website, which can be accessed at

19

https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cand/faq/tips/redacting.htm.

20

District has also posted helpful information about E-Filing under

21

seal, which can be accessed at

22

http://cand.uscourts.gov/ecf/underseal.

23

The Court notes that the Northern District of

The

Further, because Docket No. 47 contains confidential

24

material, the Court STRIKES Docket No. 47 and directs the Clerk to

25

delete it from the public docket.

26

Finally, the Court notes that many of Plaintiff’s filings

27

include the full names of her minor children and other personally

28

identifying and sensitive information related to her children.
3

1

For example, Plaintiff’s application for appointment of Guardian

2

ad Litem (Docket No. 10) contains both of the children’s full

3

names and mailing addresses.

4

psychological evaluation of R.F. is attached as an exhibit to the

5

application.

6

comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local

7

Rules of this Court.

8

docket to permit Plaintiff an opportunity to review all of her

9

filings, and to file appropriate motions to seal.

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

In addition, an unredacted

Plaintiff’s counsel is reminded of her duty to

The Court will temporarily seal the entire

Within fourteen days of the date of this order, Plaintiff

11

shall re-file, using only the child’s initials, any document in

12

which she previously used any minor child’s first name.

13

is the only change Plaintiff is making to a document, she may do

14

so without a motion.

15

seal documents or portions of documents that contain other

16

sensitive information related to her minor children.

17

If this

In addition Plaintiff shall file motions to

To aid the Court in its review of Plaintiff’s compliance with

18

this order, Plaintiff is instructed to provide the Court with a

19

list of all of the documents she has filed indicating:

20

1. The docket numbers of documents she has filed that do not

21

contain any names of minor children or information that

22

should be filed under seal.

23

2. Which documents Plaintiff is re-filing only to substitute

24

initials for names (For each such document, please provide

25

the docket number of the document that should be stricken

26

from the docket and the corresponding docket number of the

27

newly filed replacement document)

28
4

1

3. Which documents contain information that Plaintiff believes

2

should be filed under seal (For each such document, please

3

provide the docket number of the document that should be

4

stricken from the docket and the corresponding Docket Number

5

of the administrative motion to seal related to that

6

document.)

7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

Dated: 3/19/2013

CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5