Terrace Ellis v. Carson Smithfield LLC et al

Filing 6

Order Denying 5 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal. Signed by Hon. Beth Labson Freeman on 7/17/2014.(blflc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/17/2014)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5

SAN JOSE DIVISION

6
7

TERRACE ELLIS,

Case No. 14-cv-02607-BLF

Plaintiff,
8
v.

ORDER DENYING ADMINISTRATIVE
MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL

9
10

CARSON SMITHFIELD LLC, et al.,

[Re: ECF No. 5]

Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

Before the Court is Plaintiff Terrace Ellis’s Response to Order Denying In Forma Pauperis

14

and Request to File Response Under Seal. (ECF 5) The Court construes the sealing request as an

15

administrative motion to file under seal pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5.

16

On June 19, 2014, the Court denied, without prejudice, Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed

17

In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) due to inconsistent allegations of poverty. (Order, ECF 4) The Court

18

granted Plaintiff an extension to July 3, 2014 to supplement her application. (Id. 2:9) On June 30,

19

2014, Plaintiff submitted her supplemental Response and concurrently sought to file the entire

20

Response under seal. Plaintiff explains that the information in her Response “is private” and

21

therefore should be “filed under seal and not be visible to the general public.”

22

There is a “strong presumption in favor of access” to judicial records that is overridden

23

only for compelling reasons. Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178-79

24

(9th Cir. 2006). The exception to this general rule applies a lower “good cause” standard to

25

documents attached to non-dispositive motions, because such motions are typically “unrelated, or

26

only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action.” Id. (quoting Phillips v. General

27

Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1213 (9th Cir. 2002)). Plaintiff’s request to seal does not satisfy

28

Case No. 14-cv-02607-BLF
ORDER DENYING ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL

1

either standard because the only explanation she offers in support of sealing is that the

2

“information is private.” On review of the information sought to be filed under seal, the Court

3

finds that it is no more private or specific than the information that is typically filed publicly in

4

support of an IFP application. Accord Cooney v. California, No. C-13-0677 EMC, 2013 WL

5

1748053, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 23, 2013); Tater-Alexander v. Amerjan, No. 108-CV-00372-

6

OWW-SMS, 2008 WL 961234, at *1-3 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 8, 2008). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request

7

to file her Response to Order Denying In Forma Pauperis under seal is DENIED.

8

It is unclear whether Plaintiff intended, through her Response, to supplement the record so

9

that the Court would reconsider her IFP application on the merits or whether she merely intended
to request an extension of time in which to pay the filing fee. Plaintiff shall have until July 28,

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

2014 to either:

12

(1) Pay the full filing fee; or

13

(2) File her Response to Order Denying In Forma Pauperis into the public record, if

14

Plaintiff wishes to proceed IFP and seeks a determination of her application on the

15

merits. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(f)(2) (court will not consider a document denied sealing

16

unless submitting party files the document into the public record).

17
18
19
20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 16, 2014
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2
Case No. 14-cv-02607-BLF
ORDER DENYING ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL