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.

Korte v. Midland Funding, LLC

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit

October 9, 2013

EUGENE KORTE, Plaintiff,
v.
MIDLAND FUNDING, LLC, et al., Defendants.

ORDER

KENDALL J. NEWMAN, Magistrate Judge.

Plaintiff is proceeding in this action without counsel or "pro se." This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302(c)(21).

Before the court are three separate requests from plaintiff, received by this court on September 23, 2013. In his requests, submitted on California state court forms, plaintiff seeks injunctive relief and "intervention/professional assistance in completing service of process[] in this case." At the top of each document, plaintiff included the following request: "applicant's information to be kept confidential." The court construes plaintiff's requests as motions to seal.

For the reasons discussed below, plaintiff's motions to seal will be denied.

Documents may be sealed only by written order of the court, upon the showing required by applicable law. L.R. 141. Here, plaintiff does not make a showing that his requests should be sealed as required by applicable law. See Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu , 447 F.3d 1172, 1178-79 (9th Cir. 2006) (a party seeking to seal a judicial record bears the burden of overcoming a strong presumption in favor of access); Phillips v. General Motors , 307 F.3d 1206, 1210, 1213 (9th Cir. 2002) (non-dispositive documents and exhibits may be sealed if the party shows "good cause" for limiting access). For this reason, plaintiff's motions to seal will be denied. However, the court is cognizant of plaintiff's desire to keep certain personal information confidential. Therefore, the court will direct the Clerk of the Court to return plaintiff's three requests, and plaintiff will be given an opportunity to resubmit his requests, omitting his personal information.

However, plaintiff is cautioned that the form used for his three requests is not appropriate for the relief he seeks. First, plaintiff used a California state court form designed for a request for accommodations by persons with disabilities. Second, even if the court were to accept this form, the relief plaintiff seeks is not an accommodation of his disability, [1] but is rather a motion for the court to rule on an issue. Therefore, plaintiff's requests should be in the form of a motion, or motions, to the court in accordance with the court's Local Rules and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Finally, to the extent plaintiff seeks relief from the court in the form of "intervention... in completing service of process[], " plaintiff is advised of the following information that may inform plaintiff's future filings. On May 3, 2013, this court directed the United States Marshal to notify defendants of the commencement of this action by requesting a waiver of service. ECF No. 8. If a waiver of service is not returned, the United States Marshal will personally serve process upon defendants. While this order was entered in May, the United States Marshal will continue to attempt to effect service and, as noted in this court's February 27, 2013 order, plaintiff need not attempt service on defendants. See ECF No. 3.

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff's motions to seal are denied;

2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to return plaintiff's three requests to plaintiff; and

3. If necessary and appropriate, plaintiff may resubmit his motions to the court in accordance with the guidelines set forth in this order.


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.