UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
September 7, 2010
JOHNNY ARELLANO, PETITIONER,
JAMES E. TILTON, DIRECTOR, RESPONDENT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Michael J. Seng United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENT'S REQUEST TO FILE LODGED DOCUMENT NO. 28 UNDER SEAL
Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Respondent is represented in this action by Laura Wetzel Simpton, Esq. of the Office of the Attorney General for the State of California.
Petitioner filed the instant federal petition for writ of habeas corpus on November 11, 2007. (Pet., ECF No. 1.) On January 26, 2010 Respondent filed an answer to the petition. (Answer, ECF No. 40.) On February 4, 2010 Respondent lodged documents in support of his answer as required by Rule 5(c)-(d) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Proceedings. (Notice of Filing Lodged Docs., ECF No. 41.) Respondent also filed a request to file Lodged Document 28 under seal. (Req., ECF No. 42.)
Local Rule 141 allows the Court to seal documents only upon written order of the Court and upon the showing required by applicable law. See also Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2, 26(c). Upon reviewing the request, the Court will file in the publicly available case file an order granting or denying the Request. However, the order shall identify the document for which sealing has been granted or denied by page number without revealing its contents. Local Rule 141(d).
Generally, the content of sealed documents are of a nature that require the Court to maintain the confidentiality of the document. Here, the state of California has deemed the information contained in Lodged Document 28 as confidential and limited access to the document to a limited number of individuals. See Cal. Penal Code § 1203.05; People v. Connor, 115 Cal. App. 4th 669 (2004). "[T]he [California] Legislature intended to restrict access to private information... and thereby restore a measure of the privacy lost during the initial period of public access. However, this material also indicates that the Legislature rejected a total restriction on access... and opted instead to simply limit the period of open access." Connor, 115 Cal. App. 4th at 684. This Court shall respect the privacy interests of Petitioner created by California state law.
Based on the showing of good cause, Respondent's motion to file Lodged Document 28 under seal is GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.