Filed: Apr. 26, 2012
Latest Update: Apr. 26, 2012
Summary: ORDER GREGORY G. HOLLOWS, Magistrate Judge. By Order, filed on April 8, 2012, defendants Kopec and Martin were directed to submit, within fourteen days, for in camera review a proposed redacted version of the documents, for the entirety of which they sought a sealing order by a request filed on March 29, 2012. In the April 8th order, the court, inter alia, informed the parties that the undersigned was contemplating the filing of the unredacted motion/opposition under seal along with a public f
Summary: ORDER GREGORY G. HOLLOWS, Magistrate Judge. By Order, filed on April 8, 2012, defendants Kopec and Martin were directed to submit, within fourteen days, for in camera review a proposed redacted version of the documents, for the entirety of which they sought a sealing order by a request filed on March 29, 2012. In the April 8th order, the court, inter alia, informed the parties that the undersigned was contemplating the filing of the unredacted motion/opposition under seal along with a public fi..
More
ORDER
GREGORY G. HOLLOWS, Magistrate Judge.
By Order, filed on April 8, 2012, defendants Kopec and Martin were directed to submit, within fourteen days, for in camera review a proposed redacted version of the documents, for the entirety of which they sought a sealing order by a request filed on March 29, 2012. In the April 8th order, the court, inter alia, informed the parties that the undersigned was contemplating the filing of the unredacted motion/opposition under seal along with a public filing of the redacted motion/opposition.
Defendants have timely submitted a proposed redacted version of the defendants' dispositive motion and exhibits. The court's review demonstrates that defendants have appropriately limited the proposed redacted material to information that could well implicate institutional safety and security; there is also a limited amount of suggested redaction that encompasses material, i.e., medical information, that legitimately implicates private and highly personal concerns. The court finds there are compelling reasons for the very limited information not to be subject to public scrutiny which defendants have now shown some restraint in identifying. Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass'n., 605 F.3d 665, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2010).
Accordingly, IT IS SO ORDERED that:
1. Defendants' motion, filed on March 29, 2012 (docket # 96), for an order sealing their entire pending dispositive motion is denied; however, construed more narrowly as a request to seal only those portions for which defendants have timely submitted, on April 23, 2012, a proposed redacted version (pursuant to this court's order), the motion, as modified, is granted;
2. Defendants are directed to file in the case docket open to public viewing the April 23, 2012, proposed redacted version of their motion for summary judgment and supporting exhibits, submitted to the court for in camera review; and
3. The unredacted version of defendants' March 29, 2012, motion for summary judgment and supporting exhibits, submitted for in camera review, shall be filed and maintained under seal until further order of the court.
