Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Kiel J. Sturm v. the World

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION


July 19, 2011

KIEL J. STURM,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
THE WORLD, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Lucy H. Koh United States District Judge

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO SEAL; CONFIRMING DISMISSAL OF ACTION its entirety. As the Court explained in its previous order, court records may be sealed only upon a 18 showing of "compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the general 19 history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure." Kamakana v. City and County of 20

Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178-79 (9th Cir. 2006) (quotation marks and citation omitted). Under 21 this standard, it is not enough to show that the records "may lead to a litigant's embarrassment, 22 incrimination, or exposure to further litigation." Id. at 1179. Although the Court is sympathetic to 23

Plaintiff's desire to keep his lawsuit out of the public eye, Plaintiff's wish to avoid embarrassment 24 or public scrutiny is not sufficient to overcome the strong policy in favor of public access to court 25 documents. The Court explained the "compelling reasons" standard in its prior order, see Order 26

Denying Motion to Seal; Denying Motion for Leave to Amend, Dkt. No. 20, and Plaintiff has not 27 presented any facts or arguments in his renewed motion that would satisfy this standard.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

Plaintiff Kiel Sturm moves to seal all documents filed in this case and to dismiss the case in Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion to seal all documents in this case is DENIED.

Plaintiff also requests that the Court dismiss the entire case. The Court dismissed this case in its entirety on March 4, 2011. See Order Dismissing Case, Dkt. No. 17. The case has been 3 closed since that date. Accordingly, Plaintiff's request to dismiss the entire case has already been granted. As the case has been dismissed and closed for over four months, Plaintiff is instructed not 5 to file any further motions or requests in this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20110719

© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.