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.

Macario Belen Dagdagan v. City of Vallejo

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


October 7, 2011

MACARIO BELEN DAGDAGAN,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
CITY OF VALLEJO, VALLEJO OFFICER JOHN BOYD (ID# 589), VALLEJO OFFICER J. WENTZ (ID# 524), VALLEJO OFFICER JAMES MELVILLE, DEFENDANTS.

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

ORDER

Plaintiff submitted to chambers via an email to the Courtroom Deputy, for an in camera consideration, a four page "Request to File Documents Under Seal" and the documents Plaintiff seeks to have sealed. Plaintiff states this sealing request is made because he will use the subject documents in support of his opposition to Defendants' summary judgment motion.

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

Plaintiff, as the movant to have documents sealed in connection with a dispositive motion, must show "compelling reasons exist to seal the documents." Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass'n, 504 F.3d 792, 803 (9th Cir. 2007). This showing must be "supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure, such as the public interest in understanding the judicial process." Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178-79 (9th Cir. 2006) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).

Plaintiff's conclusory arguments in his request do not satisfy this burden. Therefore, Plaintiff's request is DENIED.

In light of this ruling, the referenced documents are not part of the court docketing system, because when a movant seeks a sealing order which is not shown justified under the applicable sealing standard, 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. See United States v. BaezAlcaino, 718 F. Supp. 1503, 1507 (M.D. Fla. 1989)

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20111007

© 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.