IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
September 18, 2009
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, EX REL. MARY HENDOW AND JULIA ALBERTSON, PLAINTIFFS,
UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX, DEFENDANT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Garland E. Burrell, Jr. United States District Judge
The parties filed a joint motion for a sealing order on September 15, 2009, in which they "request the opportunity to address the current Scheduling Order with the Court," and state "[t]he reasons supporting the request are set forth in detail in the accompanying Joint Motion to Address Scheduling Order ('Joint Motion'), which is being hand-delivered for in camera review . . . ." (Mot. 2:2-4.) The referenced in camera review documents were submitted to chambers September 16, 2009. The parties state "[i]f the Court is not inclined to file the Joint Motion under seal, [which is submitted for in camera review,] then the parties respectfully request that all documents be returned without being placed in the public record." (Mot. 2:9-11.) Further, the parties state in their September 15 filing that good cause justifies granting their request for secret filings.
The parties, however, have not shown a secret filing or proceeding is necessary. Cf. Citizens First Nat. Bank of Princeton v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 178 F.3d 943, 945 (7th Cir. 1999) ("The judge is the primary representative of the public interest in the judicial process and is duty-bound therefore to review any request to seal the record (or part of it)," for the purpose of determining whether secrecy is required.). Therefore, the Clerk of the Court shall return the documents submitted for in camera review to Defendant's counsel.
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.