ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO REDACT AND DIRECTING DEFENDANT TO FILE REDACTED DOCUMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LOCAL RULE 140 AND THIS ORDER

(Doc. No. 109)

DALE A. DROZD, District Judge.

Plaintiff Agnes Xie ("plaintiff") filed a complaint against defendant De Young Properties 5418, LP ("defendant") on October 7, 2016. (Doc. No. 1.) On June 26, 2018, defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, supported by four exhibits, and noticed the motion for hearing on August 7, 2018. (Doc. No. 70.)

On June 28, 2018, after receiving an email from plaintiff, the court issued a minute order directing the Clerk of the Court to temporarily seal exhibit 4 to defendant's motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 70-4) and directing defendant's counsel to immediately file an appropriately redacted exhibit because the exhibit as originally filed included confidential information that should have been redacted pursuant to Local Rule 140. (Doc. No. 71.) On June 29, 2018, defendant filed a notice of request to seal documents, or alternatively, to allow redactions. (Doc. No. 72.) On July 2, 2018, the court issued an order directing defendant to file redacted documents, with redactions of financial account numbers, social security numbers, dates of birth, and plaintiff's current and previous addresses. (Doc. No. 73.)

On July 24, 2018, plaintiff filed a motion to seal documents and to direct defendant to refile with redactions. (Doc. No. 83.) Plaintiff alleged that defendant did not properly seal the exhibits containing plaintiff's confidential information, and moved for sanctions to be imposed on defendant. (Doc. Nos. 82-83.) The court denied plaintiff's motion to sanction defendant but struck the prior exhibits and directed defendant to replace them with a version including additional redactions. (Doc. No. 92.)

On August 14, 2018, plaintiff filed yet another motion to seal documents and to direct defendant to refile with redactions. (Doc. No. 109.) Plaintiff requests further redactions of numbers that she claims can be used to determine her social security number, date of birth, and passport numbers. (Id.) Defendant does not oppose this motion.

The legal standards regarding requests to seal and redact have been set forth in this court's prior orders and will not be repeated at length here. (See Doc. No. 73 at 2-3.) Plaintiff now argues that additional documents include personally identifiable numbers that could result in identity theft and should be sealed. (Doc. No. 109.) The court will grant plaintiff's unopposed motion as to the following documents: MSJ-0044, MSJ-0051, MSJ-0054, MSJ-0055, MSJ-0056, MSJ-0057. Accordingly, defendant is ordered to file a redacted version of Doc. No. 96 that reflects the redactions as described by plaintiff. (See Doc. No. 109.)

For these reasons:

IT IS SO ORDERED.