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.

Markus M. Hall, An Individual v. City of Fairfield

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


September 12, 2011

MARKUS M. HALL, AN INDIVIDUAL; MONIQUE G. RANKIN, AN INDIVIDUAL; AND LINDSEY K. SANDERS, AN INDIVIDUAL,
PLAINTIFFS,
v.
CITY OF FAIRFIELD, A CALIFORNIA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION; OFFICER NICK MCDOWELL, INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HIS CAPACITY AS A POLICE OFFICER WITH THE CITY OF FAIRFIELD; OFFICER CHRIS GRIMM, INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HIS CAPACITY AS A POLICE OFFICER WITH THE CITY OF FAIRFIELD; OFFICER TOM SHACKFORD, INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HIS CAPACITY AS A POLICE OFFICER WITH THE CITY OF FAIRFIELD; OFFICER ZACK SANDOVAL, INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HIS CAPACITY AS A POLICE OFFICER WITH THE CITY OF FAIRFIELD; SERGEANT STEVE CRANE, INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HIS CAPACITY AS A POLICE OFFICER WITH THE CITY OF FAIRFIELD; IN-N-OUT BURGER, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION; AND MARC L. YOUNG, AN INDIVIDUAL; AND DOES 1 THROUGH 50, INCLUSIVE, DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Garland E. Burrell, Jr. United States District Judge

ORDER

Plaintiffs submitted to chambers via an email to the Courtroom Deputy, for an in camera consideration, a "Request to Seal Documents" and the documents Plaintiffs seek to have sealed. Plaintiffs state this sealing request is made in connection with their motion for summary adjudication of issues.

Since it is evident that Plaintiffs' "Request to Seal Documents" should have been filed on the public docket, the Clerk of the Court shall file Plaintiffs' "Request to Seal Documents" on the public docket.

Plaintiffs indicate their authority justifying sealing the other documents is a "Stipulation and Order to Protect Confidential Information" ("Stipulation"), filed in this action as Docket Number 35 on March 22, 2011. However, this authority has not been shown sufficient to justify the sealing request; therefore, the request is denied.

In light of this ruling, the referenced documents are not part of the court docketing system. See United States v. Baez-Alcaino, 718 F. Supp. 1503, 1507 (M.D. Fla. 1989) (explaining that when a judge decides in camera that the movant for a sealing order fails to justify a sealing request, the documents are returned to the movant so that the movant can decide what, if any, action should be taken to have the documents included in the court's docketing system).

20110912

© 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.