Trulove v. San Francisco et al

Filing 387

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO SEAL; GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION TO SEAL AT TRIAL by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers granting in part and denying in part 324 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting in part and denying in part 325 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting in part and denying in part 339 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting in part and denying in part 340 Administrative Motion to Fi le Under Seal; granting in part and denying in part 361 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting in part and denying in part 364 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting in part and denying in part 365 Administrative Moti on to File Under Seal; granting in part and denying in part 370 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting in part and denying in part 371 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting in part and denying in part 377 Administrat ive Motion to File Under Seal; granting in part and denying in part 170 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting in part and denying in part 175 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting in part and denying in part 176 Adm inistrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting in part and denying in part 177 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting in part and denying in part 198 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting in part and denying in part [2 07] Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting in part and denying in part 211 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting in part and denying in part 264 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting in part and denying in part 265 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting in part and denying in part 266 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting in part and denying in part 267 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting in part and de nying in part 277 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting in part and denying in part 294 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting in part and denying in part 307 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting in par t and denying in part 308 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting in part and denying in part 309 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting in part and denying in part 310 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; grantin g in part and denying in part 311 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting in part and denying in part 314 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting in part and denying in part 320 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting in part and denying in part 322 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal. (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/23/2018)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
IN AND FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7
8

JAMAL RASHID TRULOVE,
Plaintiff,

9
10
11
12

v.
MAUREEN D’AMICO, ET AL.
Defendants.

13
14

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

Case No. 16-cv-50 YGR
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING
IN PART ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO
SEAL; GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING
IN PART MOTION TO SEAL AT TRIAL
Dkt. Nos. 170, 175, 176, 177, 198, 207, 211,
264, 265, 266, 267, 277, 294, 307, 308, 309,
310, 311, 314, 320, 322, 324, 325, 339, 340,
361, 364, 365, 370, 371, 377

Pending before the Court in this matter are the motion of plaintiff to seal limited portions

15

of witness testimony at trial (Dkt. No. 277) and the administrative motions to file under seal

16

(hereinafter “AMFUS”) documents filed in connection with the parties’ motions to strike expert

17

declarations, briefing and evidentiary submissions in support of and in opposition to defendants’

18

motion for summary judgment, and pre-trial filings (Dkt. Nos. 170, 175, 176, 177, 198, 207, 211,

19

264, 265, 266, 267, 294, 307, 308, 309, 310, 311, 314, 320, 322, 324, 325, 339, 340, 361, 364,

20

365, 370, 371, 377).

21

A motion to seal documents that are part of the judicial record is governed by the

22

“compelling reasons” standard. Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass'n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir.

23

2010). A “party seeking to seal judicial records must show that ‘compelling reasons supported

24
25
26

by specific factual findings ... outweigh the general history of access and the public policies
favoring disclosure.’” Id. (quoting Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172,
1178-79 (9th Cir. 2006)). The trial court must weigh relevant factors including the “public
interest in understanding the judicial process and whether disclosure of the material could result

27
in improper use of the material for scandalous or libelous purposes or infringement upon trade
28

1
2
3

secrets.” Id. at 679 n. 6 (quoting Hagestad v. Tragesser, 49 F.3d 1430, 1434 (9th Cir.1995)).
Given the importance of the competing interests at stake, any sealing order must be narrowly
tailored. Civ. L.R. 79-5 (a).

4

With respect to the motion to seal witness testimony at trial, the motion itself is

5

GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. The real name of the person identified in this Court’s

6

Order of December 12, 2016 (Dkt. No. 101) shall be sealed and hereinafter referred to as “John

7

Doe.” John Doe, if called to testify, shall be sworn by his true name during a sealed session and

8

outside the presence of the jury. Thereafter the parties shall refer to him as John Doe since his

9

actual identity is not relevant to this case. Second, the Court shall inquire of the jury pool orally

10

at voir dire whether any of them know them this witness by his real name. The remainder of the

11

requests in the motion to seal witness testimony at trial are DENIED. The public interest in an

12

open judicial process requires that the Court narrowly limit matters that are sealed. The Court

13
14
15
16

does not find closing or altering the courtroom proceedings beyond these steps to be warranted.
The requests to seal the motion, opposition, and reply to the motion are GRANTED as to the
entirety of the documents under the lower “good cause” standard applicable to non-dispositive
matters. (Dkt. Nos. 277, 294, 340.)
As to the administrative motions to file under seal (“AMFUS”), having carefully

17
reviewed the submissions and finding compelling reasons for their sealing, the Court ORDERS
18
19
20
21

that they are GRANTED IN PART, as stated below, for the specified categories of information, and
for the filings associated with these motions and pre-trial submissions only, unless otherwise
stated:
1.

the Court will permit redaction of the real name of John Doe and any photographs

22

of John Doe. However, sealing is not granted as to any nicknames or more general discussion of

23

John Doe.

24
25
26
27

2.

sealing is granted as to any crime scene or autopsy photographs covered by

California Code of Civil Procedure section 129.;
3.

sealing is granted as to any juvenile criminal records, for all purposes, absent

further order of the Court;

28
2

1
2
3

4.

sealing is granted as to the medical history of witness Latisha Meadows as stated

in her deposition; and
5.

sealing is granted as to the medical history and records of plaintiff stated in the

4

expert reports of Drs. Berg and Kriegler, submitted in connection with plaintiff’s motion to

5

exclude Dr. Berg’s testimony.

6

The motions are otherwise DENIED for failure to establish compelling reasons to seal the

7

information. The matters in these filings go to the heart of the merits of the case. They will not

8

be shielded from public scrutiny. The Court sets forth in detail the rulings on the pending

9

motions below:

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

Defendants’ AMFUS Dkt. No. 170 Defendants’ Daubert Motions
Document or Portion of
Document South to be Sealed
Page 221 of Plaintiff’s Expert
James Trainum’s Deposition

Evidence Offered in Support
of Sealing
12/12/16 Order, DE 101

Order

Portions of Plaintiff’s Expert
James Trainum’s Expert
Report: Page 3, paragraph 10;
15, paragraph 67; page 19,
paragraph 83; page 22,
paragraph 94; and page 23,
paragraph 96

12/12/16 Order, DE 101

GRANTED IN PART as to John
Doe name and/or photograph
only

Section J of Plaintiff’s Expert
James Trainum’s Expert
Report, Pages 32–38,
paragraphs 124-146

12/12/16 Order, DE 101

GRANTED IN PART as to John
Doe name and/or photograph
only

DENIED, p. 221 is not
included in excerpt submitted

18
19
20
21
Plaintiff’s AMFUS Dkt. No. 175 Plaintiffs’ Motion to Exclude Fries
22
23
24
25
26
27

Document or Portion of
Document South to be Sealed

Evidence Offered in Support
of Sealing

Dr. Judy Melinek expert
California Code of Civil GRANTED
report, pictures on pages 10, Procedure (“CCP”) § 129
12, 17, 19, 27.
Craig Fries expert report, CCP § 129
GRANTED
pictures on pages 7, 9, 11, 12,
42; unnumbered pages in
Exhibits: D, F, H, I , M, HH

28
3

Order

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

James Norris expert report, CCP § 129
pictures on pages 10, 11, 22.

GRANTED

Dr. Dan Kruger expert report, CCP § 129
pictures on pages 14, 51, 54,
56.

GRANTED

Dr. Judy Melinek rebuttal CCP § 129
expert report, pictures on
pages 7, 8.
Exhibit of Priscilla Lualemaga CCP § 129
drawings and photos with
markings on page 4

GRANTED

GRANTED

9
10
11
12

Plaintiff’s AMFUS Dkt Nos. 176 Plaintiff’s Motion to Exclude Berg
Document or Portion of
Document to be Sealed
Expert Report of Berg

Evidence Offered in Support
of Sealing
Decl. of Jael HumphreySkomer Dkt. No. 176-1

Order

Expert Report of Dr. Julie A
Kriegler

Decl. of Jael HumphreySkomer Dkt. No. 176-1

GRANTED

GRANTED

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

Plaintiff’s AMFUS Dkt Nos. 177 Plaintiff’s Motion to Exclude Unretained Experts
Document or Portion of
Document to be Sealed
Emails between Plaintiff’s
counsel and Defendants’
counsel
Deposition of Chief Toney
Chaplin, September 8, 2017,
page 67

Evidence Offered in Support
of Sealing
Decl. of Jael HumphreySkomer Dkt. No. 176-1
12/12/16 Order, DE 101
Decl. of Jael HumphreySkomer Dkt. No. 176-1
12/12/16 Order, DE 101

GRANTED IN PART as to John
Doe name and/or photograph
only
GRANTED IN PART as to John
Doe name and/or photograph
only

Emails from Margaret
Baumgartner to counsel for
Plaintiff, September 22 & 28,
2017

Decl. of Jael HumphreySkomer Dkt. No. 176-1
12/12/16 Order, DE 101

GRANTED IN PART as to John
Doe name and/or photograph
only

Email from Anna Benvenutti
Hoffman to counsel for
Defendants, August 10, 2017

Decl. of Jael HumphreySkomer Dkt. No. 176-1
12/12/16 Order, DE 101

GRANTED IN PART as to John
Doe name and/or photograph
only

27
28
4

Order

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

Defendants’AMFUS Dkt. No. 198 Opposition to Plaintiff’s Daubert Motions
Document or Portion of
Document to be Sealed
Exhibit L copy of the
excerpts of the confidential
deposition of Joshua Bradley
Exhibit GG copy of excerpts
of the confidential deposition
transcript of Chief Toney
Chaplin

Evidence Offered in Support
of Sealing
Designated by Plaintiff’s

Order

Designated by Plaintiff’s

GRANTED IN PART as to John
Doe name and/or photograph
only

DENIED

Defendants’ AMFUS Dkt. No. 207 In Support of Reply to Defendants’ Daubert Motions
Document or Portion of
Document to be Sealed
Exhibit II, copy of the
excerpts of the confidential
deposition of Linda Allen.

Evidence Offered in Support
of Sealing
Plaintiff designated this as
confidential; subsequently
withdrawn

Order
DENIED as moot

12
13
14
15
16

Defendants’ AMFUS Dkt. No. 211 Reply Brief to Defendants’ Daubert Motions
Document or Portion of
Document to be Sealed
Defendants’ Reply Brief to
Defendants’ Daubert Motions

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

Evidence Offered in Support
of Sealing
Plaintiff designated this as
confidential; subsequently
withdrawn

DENIED as moot

Defendants’ AMFUS In Support of Summary Judgment (Dkt Nos. 264, 265, 266, 267)
Document or Portion of
Evidence Offered in Support
Document to be Sealed
of Sealing
Dkt. No. 265-5 and Dkt. No.
12/12/16 Order, Dkt. No. 101
265-6, Exhibit 20 to Request
for Judicial Notice
Dkt. No. 266-3, Exhibit A – 12/12/16 Order, Dkt. No. 101
Allen Depo
Dkt. No. 266-5, Exhibit C –
12/12/16 Order, Dkt. No. 101
Bradley Depo
Dkt. No. 266-7, Exhibit D –
D’Amico Depo

12/12/16 Order, Dkt. No. 101

Dkt. No. 266-13, Exhibit G –
Chron

12/12/16 Order, Dkt. No. 101

26
27

Order

28
5

Order
GRANTED IN PART as to
John Doe name and/or
photograph only
DENIED as moot
GRANTED IN PART as to
John Doe name and/or
photograph only
GRANTED IN PART as to
John Doe name and/or
photograph only
GRANTED IN PART as to
John Doe name and/or
photograph only

1
2
3

Dkt. No. 266-21, Exhibit P –
Johnson Depo

12/12/16 Order, Dkt. No. 101

Dkt. No. 266-23, Exhibit R –
Malo Kuka

12/12/16 Order, Dkt. No. 101

Dkt. No. 266-27, Exhibit HH –
David Trulove Depo

12/12/16 Order, Dkt. No. 101

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

Dkt. No. 267-5, Portions of the 12/12/16 Order, Dkt. No. 101
declaration of Maureen
D’Amico
Dkt. No. 267-3, Portions of the 12/12/16 Order, Dkt. No. 101
declaration of Michael Johnson
Dkt. No. 264-3, Portions of the
Memorandum of Points and
Authorities
Dkt. No. 264-5, Portions of the
Separate Statement of
Undisputed Facts

12/12/16 Order, Dkt. No. 101

12/12/16 Order, Dkt. No. 101

GRANTED IN PART as to
John Doe name and/or
photograph only
GRANTED IN PART as to
John Doe name and/or
photograph only
GRANTED IN PART as to
John Doe name and/or
photograph only
GRANTED IN PART as to
John Doe name and/or
photograph only
GRANTED IN PART as to
John Doe name and/or
photograph only
GRANTED IN PART as to
John Doe name and/or
photograph only
GRANTED IN PART as to
John Doe name and/or
photograph only

Plaintiff’s AMFUS Dkt. No. 277 re: Motion to Seal At Trial
Document or Portion of
Document to be Sealed
Dkt. No. 277

Evidence Offered in Support
of Sealing
12/12/16 Order, Dkt. No. 101

Order
GRANTED as to entirety

Defendants’ AMFUS Dkt. No. 294 re: Oppo to Motion to Seal At Trial

18
19
20
21
22
23
24

Document or Portion of
Document to be Sealed
Dkt. No. 294-2
Dkt. No. 294-3
Dkt. No. 294-4
Dkt. No. 294-5
Dkt. No. 294-6
Dkt. No. 294-7
Dkt. No. 294-8

Evidence Offered in Support
of Sealing
12/12/16 Order, Dkt. No. 101
12/12/16 Order, Dkt. No. 101
12/12/16 Order, Dkt. No. 101
12/12/16 Order, Dkt. No. 101
12/12/16 Order, Dkt. No. 101
12/12/16 Order, Dkt. No. 101
12/12/16 Order, Dkt. No. 101

25
26
27
28
6

Order
GRANTED as to entirety
GRANTED as to entirety
GRANTED as to entirety
GRANTED as to entirety
GRANTED as to entirety
GRANTED as to entirety
GRANTED as to entirety

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

Plaintiff’s AMFUS In Support of Opposition to Summary Judgment (Dkt Nos. 307, 308,
309, 310, 311)
Document or Portion of
Document Sought to be Sealed
All redacted portions of
Plaintiff’s Response in
Opposition to Motion for
Summary Judgment
All redacted portions of
Plaintiff’s Responsive
Separate Statement of Facts in
Opposition to Defendants’
Motion for Summary
Judgment
Plaintiff’s Exhibit 35, 39, 46

Evidence Offered in Support
of Sealing
Philip Decl. in Supp. of Mot.
to Seal ¶ 3

Order
GRANTED IN PART as to
John Doe name and/or
photograph only

Philip Decl. in Supp. of Mot.
to Seal ¶ 3

GRANTED IN PART as to
John Doe name and/or
photograph only

Philip Decl. in Supp. of Mot.
to Seal ¶ 3

GRANTED IN PART as to
John Doe name and/or
photograph only
GRANTED

11
Plaintiff’s Exh. 24, 32, 33, 24

CCP § 129

Plaintiff’s Exh. 4, 6, 7, 9, 10,
11, 15, 16, 17, 19, 21, 22, 26,
42, 43, 45, 49, 50, 55, 56, 57,
62, 63, 64, 66, 67, 68, 69, 71,
72, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81,
82, 84, 85, 87, 88, 90, 91, 92,
93, 96, 98

Defendants designated

12
13
14
15
16

(NOTE: no declaration from
defendants filed in support)

17
18
19
20
21
22

DENIED except to the extent
that the John Doe name
and/or photograph appears
in documents. No
declaration in support of
sealing anything additional
was filed by the designating
party.

Plaintiff’s AMFUS Dkt. No. 314 In Support of Exh. 8 In Opposition to Summary Judgment
Document or Portion of
Evidence Offered in Support
Document Sought to be Sealed of Sealing
Plaintiff’s Exh. 8
Defendants designated
(NOTE: no declaration from
defendants filed in support)

23
24
25
26
27
28
7

Order
DENIED except to the extent
that the John Doe name
and/or photograph appears
in documents. No
declaration in support of
sealing anything additional
was filed by the designating
party.

1
2
3

Plaintiff’s AMFUS Dkt. No. 320 re Plaintiff’s MIL 2
Document or Portion of
Evidence Offered in Support
Document Sought to be Sealed of Sealing
Portions of MIL #2
12/12/16 Order, Dkt. No. 101

4
5
6

Order
DENIED – portions sought to
be redacted do not include
name or photograph of John
Doe

Plaintiff’s AMFUS Dkt. No. 322 re Plaintiff’s MIL 3 Alleged Bad Acts of Plaintiff

7
8
9

Document or Portion of
Document Sought to be Sealed
Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine
#3, Exhibit A, Exhibit B

10

Evidence Offered in Support
of Sealing
Philip Decl. Dkt. No. 322-1:
Contains sensitive material
that should not be accessible
to the public

Order
DENIED – insufficient
support to seal

11
12
13
14
15

Plaintiff’s AMFUS Dkt. No. 324 re Plaintiff’s MIL 5 Alleged Bad Acts of Plaintiffs’
Witnesses
Document or Portion of
Document Sought to be Sealed
Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine
#5

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Evidence Offered in Support
of Sealing
Philip Decl. Dkt. No. 324-1:
Contains sensitive material
that should not be accessible
to the public

Order
DENIED – insufficient
support to seal

Plaintiff’s AMFUS Dkt. No. 325 re Plaintiff’s MIL 6 to Ask Leading Questions of Adverse
Witnesses
Document or Portion of
Evidence Offered in Support
Document Sought to be Sealed of Sealing
Portions of Plaintiff’s Motion 12/12/16 Order, Dkt. No. 101
in Limine # 6
Exhibit C to Plaintiff’s
Motion in Limine #6

12/12/16 Order, Dkt. No. 101

Order
GRANTED IN PART as to
John Doe name only
GRANTED

Defendants’ AMFUS Dkt. No. 339 In Support of Defendants’ MILs
Document or Portion of
Document Sought to be Sealed
Baumgartner Decl. Exh C
(D’Amico) and E (Johnson) to
Defendants’ Motions In
Limine

Evidence Offered in Support
of Sealing
Baumgartner Decl.: marked as
confidential, contain
confidential information

8

Order
DENIED – insufficient
support to seal

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

Plaintiff’s AMFUS Dkt. No. 340 re Plaintiff’s Reply to Sealing at Trial
Document or Portion of
Evidence Offered in Support
Document Sought to be Sealed of Sealing
Plaintiff’s Reply in Support of 12/12/16 Order, Dkt. No. 101
Motion to Seal Limited
Portions of Witness
Testimony at Trial and
Exhibits (entirety)

13
14
15
16
17

GRANTED in its entirety.

Defendants’ AMFUS Dkt. No. 361 re Defendants’ Oppo to Plaintiff’s MIL No. 3
Document or Portion of
Document Sought to be Sealed
Defendants’ Opposition to
Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine
Number Three

11
12

Order

Exhibit D to the Declaration of
Margaret W. Baumgartner in
Support of Defendants’
Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion
in Limine Number Three
Defendants’ Opposition to
Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine
Number Five
Defendants’ Opposition to
Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine
Number Six

Evidence Offered in
Support of Sealing
Plaintiff’s
designation and
12/12/16 Order, Dkt.
No. 101;
Plaintiff’s
designation
and12/12/16 Order,
Dkt. No. 101

Ruling
GRANT

GRANT

12/12/16 Order, Dkt.
No. 101

GRANT

12/12/16 Order, Dkt.
No. 101

GRANT

18
Plaintiff’s AMFUS Dkt No. 364 re Declaration of Dr. Dale Watson
19
20
21

Document or Portion of
Evidence Offered in Support
Document South to be Sealed
of Sealing
Expert Declaration of Dr. Protective Order, Dkt. No. 57 GRANT
Dale Watson
contains medical information

Order

22
23
24
25
26
27

Plaintiff’s AMFUS Dkt. No. 365 re Proposed Trial Witness List
Document or Portion of
Document Sought to be
Sealed
Redacted portions of Plaintiff
and Defendants’ Proposed
Trial Exhibit Lists at
Pages 4, 10

Evidence Offered in Support
of Sealing
12/12/16 Order, Dkt. No. 101

28
9

Order

GRANT

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

Defendants’ AMFUS Dkt. No. 370 re: Reply to Motion for Summary Judgment
Document or Portion of
Document Sought to be Sealed
Portions of Reply
Memorandum of Points and
Authorities in Support of
Defendants’ Motion for
Summary Judgment.
Supplemental Baumgartner
Declaration Ex. KK, portions
of the deposition of Michael
Johnson.
Supplemental Baumgartner
Declaration Ex. MM, portions
of the deposition of Maureen
D’Amico.
Supplemental Baumgartner
Declaration Ex. NN, portions
of the deposition of Linda
Allen.
Supplemental Baumgartner
Declaration Ex. QQ, portions
of the deposition of Joshua
Bradley.

Evidence Offered in Support
of Sealing
Plaintiff’s designation and
12/12/16 Order, Dkt. No.
101

Ruling

Plaintiff’s designation and
12/12/16 Order, Dkt. No.
101

GRANTED IN PART as to
John Doe name and/or
photograph only

Plaintiff’s designation and
12/12/16 Order, Dkt. No.
101

GRANTED IN PART as to
John Doe name and/or
photograph only

Plaintiff’s designation and
12/12/16 Order, Dkt. No.
101

GRANTED IN PART as to
John Doe name and/or
photograph only

Plaintiff’s designation and
12/12/16 Order, Dkt. No.
101

GRANTED

GRANTED

Plaintiff’s AMFUS Dkt. No. 371 re: Exhibit List
Document or Portion of
Document Sought to be
Sealed
Redacted portions of Plaintiff
and Defendants’ Proposed
Trial Exhibit Lists at
Pages 4, 10

Evidence Offered in Support
of Sealing

Order

12/12/16 Order, Dkt. No. 101

GRANTED IN PART as to John
Doe name and/or photograph
only

Plaintiff’s AMFUS Dkt. No. 377 re: Portions of Meadows Deposition
Document or Portion of
Evidence Offered in Support
Document to be Sealed
of Sealing
Ex. B
Protective Orders, Dkt. No.
(Pages 11, 58–147, of Latisha 57 because portions are
Meadows’ deposition)
medical information, and
under 12/12/16 Order, Dkt.
No. 101

28
10

Order
GRANTED as to page 11;
GRANTED IN PART with
respect to page 58 and index;
may only redact John Doe’s
name
DENIED as to pages 59-147.

1
2
3
4

Accordingly, only the above documents or specified portions thereof shall remain under
seal. All documents, or portions thereof, as to which a sealing request was withdrawn or sealing
was denied shall be filed publically by the submitting party within seven (7) days of entry of this
Order. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(f).

5
6
7
8
9

This terminates Docket Nos. 170, 175, 176, 177, 198, 207, 211, 264, 265, 266, 267, 277,
294, 307, 308, 309, 310, 311, 314, 320, 322, 324, 325, 339, 340, 361, 364, 365, 370, 371, and
377.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 23, 2018

____________________________________
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
11