Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-00731/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-00731-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

CHAKONG THAO, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

JEFF LYNCH, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:21-cv-0731 KJM AC P 

ORDER 

 Defendant has filed a Notice of Request to Seal Documents in which she seeks the filing 

under seal of three specified documents. ECF No. 42. In accordance with Local Rule 141, the 

Request to Seal Documents, proposed order, and the documents to be filed under seal were 

submitted to the court. Plaintiff has not opposed the request. 

 Local Rule 141(a) provides that “[d]ocuments may be sealed only by written order of the 

Court, upon the showing required by applicable law.” In this case, defendant requests leave to 

file documents under seal on the ground that the documents have been labeled as confidential 

under the protective order entered in this case. ECF No. 42. However, Local Rule 141 requires 

that “[t]he ‘Request to Seal Documents’ shall set forth the statutory or other authority for 

sealing,” L.R. 141(b) (emphasis added), and in approving the parties’ protective order, the court 

advised the parties that “designation of documents (including transcripts of testimony) as 

confidential pursuant to this order does not automatically entitle the parties to file such a 

Case 2:21-cv-00731-DC-AC Document 43 Filed 01/25/23 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 

document with the court under seal,” ECF No. 39 at 1. The parties were also specifically directed 

to the requirements of Local Rule 141(b). Id. at 1-2. Defendant has therefore failed to 

demonstrate that the request to seal should be granted and will be given an opportunity to 

supplement the request. Failure to supplement the request to seal will result in the request being 

denied. 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that within seven days of the filing of this 

order, defendant may supplement her request to seal to provide the authority for sealing the 

requested documents. 

DATED: January 25, 2023 

Case 2:21-cv-00731-DC-AC Document 43 Filed 01/25/23 Page 2 of 2