Filed: Nov. 20, 2018
Latest Update: Nov. 20, 2018
Summary: STIPULATED REQUEST TO SEAL DOCUMENTS PREVIOUSLY FILED IN COMPLIANCE WITH COURT'S ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANTS' REQUEST TO SEAL EVIDENCE AND REDACT NAMES, AND AMENDING THE PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER, AND ORDER. MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR. , District Judge . Plaintiff KARIN BJORK ("Plaintiff") and Defendant COUNTY OF PLACER THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE ("Defendant"), by and through their respective counsel, hereby agree and stipulate as follows: 1. On November 21, 2016, Defendant filed a request
Summary: STIPULATED REQUEST TO SEAL DOCUMENTS PREVIOUSLY FILED IN COMPLIANCE WITH COURT'S ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANTS' REQUEST TO SEAL EVIDENCE AND REDACT NAMES, AND AMENDING THE PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER, AND ORDER. MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR. , District Judge . Plaintiff KARIN BJORK ("Plaintiff") and Defendant COUNTY OF PLACER THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE ("Defendant"), by and through their respective counsel, hereby agree and stipulate as follows: 1. On November 21, 2016, Defendant filed a request ..
More
STIPULATED REQUEST TO SEAL DOCUMENTS PREVIOUSLY FILED IN COMPLIANCE WITH COURT'S ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANTS' REQUEST TO SEAL EVIDENCE AND REDACT NAMES, AND AMENDING THE PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER, AND ORDER.
MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR., District Judge.
Plaintiff KARIN BJORK ("Plaintiff") and Defendant COUNTY OF PLACER THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE ("Defendant"), by and through their respective counsel, hereby agree and stipulate as follows:
1. On November 21, 2016, Defendant filed a request to seal certain documents and/or redact various names (ECF No. 68) in its contemplated motion for summary judgment.
2. Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment was thereafter filed on December 1, 2016, with unredacted copies provided to the Court and to Plaintiff (ECF No. 69). At the time the Motion was filed, the Court had not yet ruled on the request to seal.
3. Plaintiff filed her Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment on December 22, 2016 (ECF No. 71). Thereafter, she filed an Amended Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment and Objection to Defendant's Evidence and Undisputed Facts in support of Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, on December 23, 2016 (ECF No. 72 & No. 73).
4. Defendant's sealing request was granted in part by Order dated January 6, 2017 (ECF No. 74).
5. The January 6, 2017 Order required the following:
a. Redaction of the names of certain former employees and the sealing of certain evidence relating to the disciplinary actions brought against those employees.
b. The sealing of all evidence relating to the performance of another former employee, and redaction of that employee's name in all papers filed in connection with Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment.
c. Redaction of any mention in the evidence of specific medical issues, condition, diagnosis, or specific medication of another former employee. The parties were also ordered to refer to such medical issues and medication in the briefs—if at all—in general terms, without referencing any specific issue, condition, diagnosis, or medication.
d. Defendants Request to Seal and Proposed Order, Plaintiff's Opposition thereto, and Defendant's Reply, as well as the Order of this Court titled "Sealed Order," shall be filed under seal.
6. The January 6, 2017 Order additionally granted Plaintiff's Ex Parte Request and Stipulation to Amend the Pretrial Scheduling Deadlines for the Motion for Summary Judgment Briefing Schedule, extending the deadlines for filing the Motion, Opposition, Cross-Motion, and Reply papers.
7. In accordance with the modified deadlines, the Order required Defendant to file its redacted copy of the pending Motion for Summary Judgment by December 29, 2016, a date that had passed a week beforehand. Rather than applying for an additional extension to correct this discrepancy, Defendant simply filed redacted papers on January 13, 2017 (ECF No. 76).
8. Plaintiff refiled her Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment on January 19, 2017 (ECF No. 87). The refiled Opposition did not include redacted information as required by the Court's January 6, 2017 Order.
9. Defendant also inadvertently filed papers in connection with its Motion for Summary Judgment that do not contain redactions of the former employee's name as required by the Court's January 6, 2017 Order.
10. An attorney representing the former employee in issue has contacted counsel for both parties and requested that the parties take the necessary steps to comply with the Court's order and ensure that information regarding that employee is not publicly available on the Court's docket. The parties agree this should be done. Thus, they respectfully request that the Court seal the following documents previously filed by Plaintiff in connection with Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, which are publicly available on the Court's docket, to comply with the Court's January 6, 2017 Order and to protect the privacy of the former employee:
a. Docket Entry No. 71
b. Docket Entry No. 71-1
c. Docket Entry No. 71-2
d. Docket Entry No. 71-3
e. Docket Entry No. 71-5
f. Docket Entry No. 71-6
g. Docket Entry No. 71-7
h. Docket Entry No. 71-8
i. Docket Entry No. 72
j. Docket Entry No. 73
k. Docket Entry No. 87-1
l. Docket Entry No. 87-2
m. Docket Entry No. 87-4
n. Docket Entry No. 87-6
o. Docket Entry No. 87-7
p. Docket Entry No. 87-9
11. The parties hereby request that the Court seal the following documents previously filed by Defendant in connection with its Motion for Summary Judgment, which are publicly available on the Court's docket, to comply with the Court's January 6, 2017 Order and to protect the privacy of the former employee:
a. Docket Entry No. 76-2
b. Docket Entry No. 78
c. Docket Entry No. 90-1
12. The parties hereby request that the Court permit the parties to re-file the above named documents in connection with Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment with all redactions of the former employee's name performed in compliance with the Court's January 6, 2017 Order.
The documents previously filed by Plaintiff in connection with Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment containing all required redactions are attached to this Stipulation as Exhibits 1-16. The documents previously filed by Defendant in connection with its Motion for Summary Judgment containing all required redactions are attached to this Stipulation as Exhibits 17-19.
IT IS SO STIPULATED.
ORDER
The Court has considered the Stipulated Request to Seal Documents Previously Filed (ECF No. 103), which seeks to seal previously filed documents in compliance with this Court's January 6, 2017 Order (ECF No. 74). Based on the parties' stipulation, and for good cause shown, the Court GRANTS this request. The parties are permitted to file and/or re-file the documents identified in the Stipulated Request, and pursuant to Local Rule 141 the Court ORDERS that these documents are hereby filed under permanent seal.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
