IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
August 5, 2010
IRWIN DOUGLAS, PLAINTIFF,
SACRAMENTO COUNTY, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
This case is before the undersigned pursuant to Eastern District of California Local Rule 302(c)(21). See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). On July 30, 2010, defendants filed a "Notice of Request to Seal Documents" pursuant to Local Rule 141, seeking to file under seal a motion for summary judgment or, in the alternative, summary adjudication, and the documents in support thereof. Dckt. No. 38. Defendants contend that the documents they seek to seal "are replete with personal, private information relating to Plaintiff..., including information pertaining to the criminal records that were previously sealed by the Superior Court for the County of Sacramento," but argue that unredacted versions of the documents should be considered by the Court because "the personal information and information in the criminal file are directly at issue in this civil action and particularly pertinent in order for the Court to decide Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the Alternative, Summary Adjudication." Id.
Although defendants contend that the Court should consider an unredacted version of their motion for summary judgment/adjudication, they do not explain why a redacted version of the motion could not be filed.*fn1 Although much of the motion may be subject to redaction, defendants are directed to file a redacted version of their motion for summary judgment/adjudication on the publicly available docket not later than August 12, 2010.*fn2
Thereafter, the court will determine whether the unredacted version of the motion that has already been provided to the Court and to plaintiff shall be filed under seal.