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, Monique G. Rankin, Lindsey K. Sanders v. City of Fairfield

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


December 7, 2011

MARKUS M. HALL, MONIQUE G. RANKIN, LINDSEY K. SANDERS,
PLAINTIFFS,
v.
CITY OF FAIRFIELD, NICK MCDOWELL, CHRIS GRIMM, TOM SHACKFORD, ZACK SANDOVAL, STEVE CRANE, DEFENDANTS.

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

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO SEAL DOCUMENTS; DENYING DEFENDANTS' REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

On October 7, 2011, Defendants filed a motion to place under seal exhibits C, D, E and F, which are attached to the declaration of Garret Murai ("exhibits"). This motion is denied because it fails to satisfy the applicable "compelling reasons" reasons standard. Kamakana v. City and Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006).

Defendants also request that Plaintiffs' counsel be sanctioned $500 under Local Rule 110, since a protective order in this case prohibited Plaintiffs from filing the exhibits on the public docket. However, in light of the nature of the motion involved in Defendants' request for a sanction, Defendants have not shown that the referenced protective order justifies the sanction they seek. Therefore,

Defendants' sanctions request is DENIED.

20111207

© 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.