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.

Hugo Villasenor v. Fairfield Police Department

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


August 8, 2011

HUGO VILLASENOR, PLAINTIFF,
v.
FAIRFIELD POLICE DEPARTMENT, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Kendall J. Newman United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER

This case was dismissed with prejudice and judgment was entered on July 13, 2011. (Dkt. Nos. 55-56.) Previously, on June 13, 2011, plaintiff filed documents appearing to contain his private health information (Dkt. No. 54), and the court considered those documents in its order dismissing the case.*fn1 (Dkt. No. 55 at 4-5.) Notwithstanding this court's Local Rules 140 and 141, which address the handling of private information and requests to redact documents or file documents under seal, plaintiff did not request that those documents be filed under seal.

Although Local Rule 140(e) provides that the Court will not, "as a matter of course seal on its own motion documents containing personal data identifiers, or redact documents," the undersigned nonetheless sua sponte directs the Clerk of Court to file under seal all documents accompanying plaintiff's filing on June 13, 2011, in order to ensure the completeness of the record. (Dkt. No. 54.)

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court seal all documents accompanying the motion plaintiff filed on June 13, 2011 (Dkt. No. 54), as the documents appear to contain plaintiff's personal data identifiers and private health information.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


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.