STIPULATION TO WITHDRAW EXHIBITS FILED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, REPLACE WITH REDACTED COPIES; ORDER

[No hearing requested]

KIMBERLY J. MUELLER, District Judge.

Plaintiff NATHANIEL SMITH and Defendants CITY OF STOCKTON, OFFICERS ROBIN HARRISON, PATRICK MAYER, and MICHAEL PEREZ, and CHIEF OF POLICE ERIC JONES (collectively referred to as "Defendants"), by and through their counsel of record, and subject to the approval of the Court, hereby stipulate as follows:

On June 16, 2017, Defendants initially filed their motion for summary judgment. Defendants' motion for summary judgment was withdrawn, and re-filed July 21, 2017 (collectively, "Defendants' Motions") with substantially the same exhibits. Defendants' motion for summary judgment is set for hearing on August 25, 2017.

In later reviewing the documents e-filed in support of Defendants' Motions, Defendants' counsel learned that certain exhibits were inadvertently filed containing Plaintiff's unredacted date(s) of birth and/or noting several potential social security numbers. (See Doc. No. 69-3 and Doc. No. 79.)

The parties have since met and conferred and have agreed upon the following:

On July 26, 2017, Defendants' counsel re-filed the exhibits in support of Defendants' motion for summary judgment with the exhibit pages appropriately redacted. (See Doc. No. 80.) While Local Rule 140 requires that social security numbers be redacted such that only the last four digits are visible, the Plaintiff's social security number has nothing to do with the instant case or Defendants' motion for summary judgment, and thus the parties request that the redaction of Plaintiff's entire social security number, as contained in Defendants' re-filed exhibits (Doc. No. 80), be permitted and approved by this Court.

As for the previously filed exhibits in support of Defendants' Motions, the parties request that the Court order either of the following remedies, consistent with whichever approach would be most convenient and/or desirable for the Court:

1) Either completely withdraw the exhibits previously filed as document numbers 69-3 and 79, and remove them from the Court's file in their entirety. Document 80 will supersede document numbers 69-3 and 79 in support of Defendants' motion for summary judgment.

2) In the alternative, the appropriately redacted pages are attached hereto as Exhibits A, B, and C, and should be inserted as replacements to the unredacted exhibits contained in document numbers 69-3 and 79, as follows:

(i) Document Number 69-3:

(ii) Document Number 79:

Based on the foregoing, in compliance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2 and Local Rule 140, the parties respectfully request that the Court take Document Number 80 as the exhibits in support of Defendants' motion for summary judgment, superseding all previous filed exhibits, and permit the full redaction of Plaintiff's entire social security number. In addition, the parties request that the Court either remove document numbers 69-3 and 79 from the record on file, or in the alternative, that the Court insert the attached Exhibits A, B, and C where appropriate into document numbers 69-3 and 79.

ORDER

The Court, having considered the parties' stipulation, and good cause appearing, the Joint Stipulation to Withdraw Exhibits Filed in Support of Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and Replace With Redacted Copies, is GRANTED.

Document Number 80 shall supersede Document Numbers 69-3 and 79, previously filed in support of Defendants' motions for summary judgment.

The complete redaction of Plaintiff's entire social security number(s), as contained in Document Number 80, is hereby permitted.

The Court Clerk is hereby directed to seal Document Numbers 69-3 and 79 so they are not available for public view.

All parties shall comply with the provisions of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.