Filed: Mar. 24, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 24, 2016
Summary: ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO FILE PLAINTIFF'S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT UNDER SEAL ORDER SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE FOR PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO UNSEAL AND DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS BARBARA A. McAULIFFE , Magistrate Judge . By motion filed on February 5, 2016, Plaintiff requested leave to file a second amended complaint. (Doc. 84). The motion was filed under seal. On March 8, 2016, an opposition to the motion and a reply were also filed under seal. (Docs. 92, 93). On March 16, 2016, after revie
Summary: ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO FILE PLAINTIFF'S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT UNDER SEAL ORDER SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE FOR PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO UNSEAL AND DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS BARBARA A. McAULIFFE , Magistrate Judge . By motion filed on February 5, 2016, Plaintiff requested leave to file a second amended complaint. (Doc. 84). The motion was filed under seal. On March 8, 2016, an opposition to the motion and a reply were also filed under seal. (Docs. 92, 93). On March 16, 2016, after review..
More
ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO FILE PLAINTIFF'S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT UNDER SEAL
ORDER SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE FOR PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO UNSEAL AND DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS
BARBARA A. McAULIFFE, Magistrate Judge.
By motion filed on February 5, 2016, Plaintiff requested leave to file a second amended complaint. (Doc. 84). The motion was filed under seal. On March 8, 2016, an opposition to the motion and a reply were also filed under seal. (Docs. 92, 93). On March 16, 2016, after reviewing the sealed documents on the Motion, the Court issued a tentative ruling putting the parties on notice that the Court intended to grant Plaintiff's motion to amend. The Court held a hearing on March 21, 2016 on the motion. At the hearing, the Court heard limited arguments on whether portions of the amended complaint should be filed under seal. Defendants argued that Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint contains sealable information; particularly, Internal Affairs Investigations of Defendant officers in unrelated incidents. In response, Plaintiff agreed to file the Second Amended Complaint under seal along with a redacted version redacting paragraphs containing confidential information. Plaintiff requested an opportunity to brief whether the information should remain redacted and sealed. The Court advised Plaintiff that it would allow further briefing on whether the amended complaint should remain under seal.
Accordingly, having considered the Second Amended Complaint, argument presented at the hearing, as well as the Court's file, the Court ORDERS as follows:
(1) Plaintiff may file his Second Amended Complaint under seal.
(2) Within five days of the date of this order, Plaintiff shall also file an unsealed and redacted version of the Second Amended Complaint, redacting paragraphs 43-50.
(3) Any further motion practice on the Second Amended Complaint shall be as follows:
(a) Within twenty-one days of filing the sealed Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiff SHALL file his motion to unseal the second amended complaint and/or modify the protective order;
(b) Within twenty-one days of filing the sealed Second Amended Complaint, Defendants SHALL file their Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint and/or Strike Portions of the Complaint, if any. If no responsive motion is filed, Defendants shall answer the Second Amended Complaint within this same time frame.
(c) The briefing for the oppositions and replies shall follow Local Rule 230.
It is the Court's intent that any future documents which a party requests to be filed under seal shall be handled as follows: The party will submit an unredacted copy for filing under seal. See Local Rule 141. In addition, the party will file, unsealed, an additional copy of the same document which narrowly tailors redactions to protect confidential information, within 3 days of the approval of the sealed version of the document.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
