Lucas et al v. Camacho et al

Filing 152

ORDER by Judge Benjamin H Settle granting 119 Motion to Seal.(TG)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

6
7

8 CHASSIDY F. LUCAS, et al.,
9

Plaintiffs,

10

v.

11 JOE CAMACHO, et al.,
12

CASE NO. C11-5350BHS
ORDER GRANTING
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION AND
ISSUING SANCTIONS

Defendants.

13
14

This matter comes before the Court sua sponte and on the Parker Defendants’

15 motion to seal and request for sanctions against Plaintiffs. Dkt. 119. The Court having
16 considered the pleadings filed in support of and in opposition to the motion, and the
17 remainder of the file, hereby grants the motion for reasons stated herein.
18

As an initial matter, the Court notes that Plaintiff Chassidy F. Lucas has been

19 signing documents on behalf of Plaintiffs as “Power of Attorney” for herself, Bianca
20 Lucas, and CB Stormwater. The Court orders that, if Bianca Lucas wishes the Court to
21 consider the documents filed by Chassidy Lucas to also pertain to Bianca Lucas, she must
22 sign the documents herself. Chassidy Lucas has provided no authority to the Court under

ORDER - 1

1 which she may sign documents on behalf of Bianca Lucas as her “Power of Attorney.”
2 In addition, as the Court has previously stated, if Chassidy Lucas wishes to file
3 documents on behalf of CB Stormwater, she must sign the documents and add the phrase
4 “individually and d/b/a CB Stormwater, a Washington sole proprietorship.”
5

On April 3, 2012, the Parker Defendants filed a motion to seal and request for

6 sanctions against Plaintiffs. Dkt. 119. The Parker Defendants maintain that Plaintiffs
7 have repeatedly filed documents (Dkts. 96 & 117) containing the names of minor
8 children. Id. They are asking the Court to seal the documents and issue sanctions against
9 Plaintiffs for repeatedly ignoring the Court’s rules. Id. Plaintiffs failed to file a response
10 to the motion and under Local Rule 7(b)(2), “[i]f a party fails to file papers in opposition
11 to a motion, such failure may be considered by the court as an admission that the motion
12 has merit.”
13

Therefore, the Court hereby ORDERS that Dkts. 96 and 117 be SEALED and

14 redacted versions of the documents filed. In addition, the Court is issuing sanctions
15 against Plaintiffs in the form or REVOKING Plaintiffs’ ECF privileges. Accordingly,
16 Plaintiffs must follow the Court’s procedures for filing copies of documents with the
17 Clerk’s office.
18

DATED this 8th day of May, 2012.

A

19
20

BENJAMIN H. SETTLE
United States District Judge

21
22

ORDER - 2