Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00538/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00538-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
Cause of Action: 18:1961 Racketeering (RICO) 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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PASKENTA BAND OF NOMLAKI 

INDIANS; and PASKENTA 

ENTERPRISES CORPORATION,

Plaintiffs,

v.

INES CROSBY; JOHN CROSBY; 

LESLIE LOHSE; LARRY LOHSE; 

TED PATA; JUAN PATA; CHRIS 

PATA; SHERRY MYERS; FRANK 

JAMES; UMPQUA BANK; UMPQUA 

HOLDINGS CORPORATION; 

CORNERSTONE COMMUNITY BANK; 

CORNERSTONE COMMUNITY 

BANCORP; JEFFERY FINCK; GARTH 

MOORE; HARTH MOORE INSURANCE 

AND FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC.; 

ASSOCIATED PENSION 

CONSULTANTS, INC.; HANESS & 

ASSOCIATES, LLC; ROBERT M. 

HANESS; THE PATRIOT GOLD & 

SILVER EXCHANGE, INC. and 

NORMAN R. RYAN,

Defendants,

SILVER QUICKEN LOANS, INC.; 

CRP 111 WEST 141ST LLC; 

CASTELLAN MANAGING MEMBER 

LLC; CRP WEST 168TH STREET 

LLC; and CRP SHERMAN AVENUE 

LLC,

Nominal 

Defendants. 

No. 2:15-cv-00538-GEB-CMK 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ 

SEALING REQUEST

Case 2:15-cv-00538-MCE-DMC Document 89 Filed 07/14/15 Page 1 of 3
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

On July 10, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a Stipulation and 

Proposed Sealing Order, in which Plaintiffs seek to have sealed

the documents in ECF No. 72-2, which consist of “the Declaration 

of Brandin Paya in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion [and] . . . an 

attached Exhibit A.” (Stipulation & Proposed Order (“Stip.”) 1:5-

6, ECF No. 80.) Plaintiffs state the referenced filing “failed to 

redact certain private information, identifying information of 

Defendants’, including full social security numbers, home 

addresses, dates of birth, and driver’s license numbers,” and 

contend since this “identifying information . . . may be readily 

accessed and used to perpetrate a criminal act,” the documents 

should be sealed. (Id. 1:6-8; 1:12-13.) 

This sealing request is overbroad since Plaintiffs have

not shown why targeted redactions would be inadequate to protect 

the referenced private information, nor have they provided such 

redactions for the Court’s consideration. “[G]iven our strong 

tradition of open court proceedings,” a sealing order “should 

sweep no more broadly than necessary” to protect what is shown to 

be deserving of secrecy; and “the district court [is required to]

consider alternatives to closure, such as redaction.” U.S. v. 

Index Newspapers LLC, 766 F.3d 1072, 1095, 1096 (9th Cir. 2014). 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2(a) authorized 

Plaintiffs to redact, without obtaining a court order, portions 

of the referenced social security numbers and the dates of birth

they seek to seal, but Plaintiffs have not shown that all of the 

remaining portion of the sealing order they seek is a “closure 

remedy [that] is narrowly confined to protect th[e] interest[s]” 

sought to be protected from public disclosure. Perry v. City and 

Case 2:15-cv-00538-MCE-DMC Document 89 Filed 07/14/15 Page 2 of 3
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

3

County of San Francisco, No. 10-16696, 2011 WL 2419868, at *21 

(9th Cir. 2011).

Since Plaintiffs have not addressed why the privacy 

interests involved in their sealing request could not be 

protected by proposed specified redactions to ECF No. 72-2, the

sealing request is denied.

Dated: July 13, 2015

Case 2:15-cv-00538-MCE-DMC Document 89 Filed 07/14/15 Page 3 of 3