Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02309/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02309-21/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Petition for Removal

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

RANDY BLANKENCHIP and SUSAN 

BLANKENCHIP,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CITIMORTGAGE, INC.; CALWESTERN RECONVEYANCE, LLC; 

and DOES 1-50, inclusive,

Defendants.

CIV. NO. 2:14-02309 WBS AC

ORDER RE: REQUEST TO SEAL

----oo0oo----

Plaintiffs Randy and Susan Blankenchip initiated this 

suit against defendants CitiMortgage, Inc. (“Citi”) and CalWestern Reconveyance, LLC alleging defendants breached a loan 

modification agreement and wrongfully foreclosed on their home. 

Presently before the court is Citi’s amended request to seal a 

number of documents and the deposition transcripts of Citi 

representatives Matthew Sinner, Jeanne Pezold, and Jeanine Cohoon 

submitted in support of its motion for summary judgment. (Am. 

Case 2:14-cv-02309-WBS-AC Document 82 Filed 08/26/16 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

Req. to Seal (Docket No. 81).) Plaintiffs stipulate to this 

request to seal. (Id.) 

On August 16, 2016 this court denied Citi’s first 

request to seal as it was overly broad and the only justification 

Citi provided for sealing what amounted to nearly all of the 

declarations and exhibits relevant to its motion for summary 

judgment was that the evidence partially contained information 

and material subject to the parties’ stipulated protective order. 

(Aug. 16, 2016 Order (Docket No. 79).) Though Citi identifies 

more specific page ranges in its amended request to seal, it 

again fails to provide a compelling reason for sealing the three 

depositions of Citi’s representatives in their entirety and a 

number of the documents most relevant to Citi’s motion for

summary judgment, including Citi’s servicing notes on plaintiffs’ 

loan and documents regarding the fees received by Citi for 

servicing plaintiffs’ loan. Citi again contends that the 

documents “contain information and material that is confidential, 

proprietary, and/or subject to Citi’s privacy rights and is 

subject to [the] parties’ stipulated protective order.” (Am. 

Req. to Seal at 3.) For all the same reasons previously 

articulated in this court’s August 16, 2016 Order, Citi’s amended 

requested to seal is denied.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Citi’s amended request to 

seal (Docket No. 81) be, and the same hereby is, DENIED with

prejudice.

Dated: August 26, 2016

Case 2:14-cv-02309-WBS-AC Document 82 Filed 08/26/16 Page 2 of 2