Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-00731/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-00731-5/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. 

LYNCH, et al., 

Defendants. 

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

ORDER 

 Defendant has filed a motion to quash a subpoena served on non-parties California 

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and California State Prison-Sacramento (ECF No. 

40), which plaintiffs oppose (ECF No. 44). In addition to their opposition, plaintiffs have 

submitted to the court via email a document styled as a “Conditional Request for Leave to File 

Documents Subject to the Court’s Protective Order Unsealed; Notice of Filing Documents Under 

Conditional Seal in Support of Opposition to Motion to Quash Subpoenas to C.D.C.R. and C.S.P. 

Sacramento; Cross-Motion to Compel Motion to Compel Compliance with the Subpoena and 

FRCP Rule 30(d)(2).” 

 Plaintiffs’ submission improperly combines their motion to publicly file protected 

documents—which the court construes as a challenge to the documents’ confidential 

designation—and a motion to compel with a request to seal documents. These motions should be 

filed with the court in compliance with Local Rule 251, Local Rule 141(b), and Section 6.3 of the 

Case 2:21-cv-00731-DC-AC Document 47 Filed 02/02/23 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 

protective order; their submission to the court outside the court’s electronic filing system is 

improper. To the extent plaintiffs’ request to seal documents is in fact a request to seal,1 plaintiff 

has not filed a notice of request to seal documents as required by Local Rule 141(b).2 For these 

reasons, plaintiffs’ submission fails to comply with the protective order entered in this case and 

Local Rules 141 and 251 and will not be considered by the court. Plaintiffs may, if they so 

choose, resubmit their motions and request to seal in a manner that complies with the protective 

order and the applicable rules of this court. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: February 1, 2023 

1

 The request to file documents under seal appears instead to be a challenge to the confidential 

designation of the documents. 

2

 Though Local Rule 141 technically requires that the authority for sealing be provided by the 

party requesting the documents be filed under seal, the party designating the documents as 

confidential is ultimately responsible for providing such authority. In light of plaintiffs’ apparent 

challenge to the designation, should plaintiffs make further requests to file under seal, the 

designating party will be given an opportunity to provide grounds for sealing the proffered 

documents. 

Case 2:21-cv-00731-DC-AC Document 47 Filed 02/02/23 Page 2 of 2