IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
February 24, 2011
HERBERT JAMES CODDINGTON, PETITIONER,
ACTING WARDEN, RESPONDENT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gregory G. Hollows United States Magistrate Judge
DEATH PENALTY CASE ORDER
This court has authorized the filing of sensitive exhibits and briefs regarding Claim 160 to be filed under seal. However, the parties believe that the filing of documents to be sealed pursuant to that order does not require the filing of a proposed sealing order along with the exhibit/brief. Every document to be sealed requires the filing of a proposed order for sealing. While the proposed order may do no more than refer to the court's prior order with a "pursuant to" sentence, this formality is necessary as clerk's office personnel will have no knowledge when receiving a pleading that it is approved to be sealed under a prior order of this court. And, phone conversations with court personnel do not substitute for this order.
Henceforth, although the court will order Docket 121 to be sealed pursuant to Docket 116 (the general authorization to seal non-dispositive Claim 160 documents), the Clerk's Office will no longer file under seal, temporarily or otherwise, any document to be sealed related to this claim until a proposed "order to seal" has been submitted in word processing format to the judge's e-mail box listed on the court's website. Once the sealing order has been approved and filed, the requesting party is then authorized to file electronically, at the e-mail address for sealed documents listed on the Court's website, an electronic copy of the documents covered by the sealing order, in .pdf format as an attachment. See E.D. Cal. Local Rule 141.
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.