Kirk v. County of Alameda et al

Filing 111

ORDER by Judge Lucy H. Koh denying 96 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal and Ordering Defendants to Show Cause Why Sanctions Should Not Issue.(Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Mailing) (lhklc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/29/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SAN JOSE DIVISION

11
12
13
14
15
16
17

BELINDA K.,
Plaintiff,
v.
COUNTY OF ALAMEDA et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 10-CV-05797-LHK
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO SEAL
DOCUMENTS AND ORDERING
DEFENDANTS TO SHOW CAUSE
WHY SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT
ISSUE

Defendants the East Bay Children’s Law Offices and Jonna Thomas have attempted for the

18

third time to properly submit documents under seal. The Court denied both of Defendants’

19

previous motions, ordering Defendants to “replace Plaintiff’s last name in the papers with the first

20

letter of her last name (K.),” and to request to seal Ex. A to the Request for Judicial Notice as it

21

contains sealable information. See Dkt. Nos. 82 and 90. Defendants have now filed another

22

Administrative Motion to Seal. Dkt. No. 96. Contrary to the Court’s Order, Defendants seek to

23

place entire documents under seal which contain little or no sealable information. Specifically,

24

Defendants seek to seal their Notice of Motion and Motion to Dismiss, the Memorandum of Points

25

and Authorities in support of Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, the Proposed Order Granting

26

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, their Request for Judicial Notice, and the declaration of Bryan L.

27

Saalfeld. Because Defendants have replaced the Plaintiff’s last name with the first letter of her last

28
1
Case No.: 10-CV-05797-LHK
ORDER DENYING SEALING OF DOCUMENTS

1

name in the moving papers, most of these documents do not appear to contain any sealable

2
information. The only sealable information the Court finds in these documents is references to the
3
allegations made against Plaintiff’s boyfriend, on page 1 lines 8 - 10. In addition, it appears that
4
Defendants have improperly redacted Exhibit A to their Request for Judicial Notice without
5
indicating the redaction.
6
Defendants’ repeated failure to follow the Civil Local Rules regarding sealing leave the
7
Court with no choice but to issue an Order to Show Cause why sanctions should not issue for
8
failure to follow the Local Rules and the orders of this Court. Defendants’ response is due 14 days
9
from the date of this Order.
10
Defendants’ third request to seal is DENIED.
11
IT IS SO ORDERED.
12
Dated: April 29, 2011
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Case No.: 10-CV-05797-LHK
ORDER DENYING SEALING OF DOCUMENTS

_________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge