Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-00234/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-00234-14/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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 

REX CHAPPELL, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

B. FLEMING, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:12-cv-00234 MCE AC P 

ORDER 

 On February 5, 2015, the defendants filed a Notice of Request to Seal Documents in 

which they identified three confidential memoranda that they seek to have sealed. ECF. No. 84-6. 

In accordance with Local Rule 141, the Request to File Documents Under Seal, proposed order, 

and the documents to be filed under seal were submitted to the court. Upon review of the request 

and confidential memoranda, the court finds good cause to grant the defendants’ request to file 

the unredacted confidential memoranda dated May 11, 2009; September 28, 2009; and February 

2, 2010, under seal. However, defendants’ notice states that copies of the request, proposed 

order, and documents were not provided to plaintiff. ECF. No. 84-6 at 2. 

 Local Rule 141(b) states that 

[e]xcept in matters in which it is clearly appropriate not to serve the 

“Request to Seal Documents,” proposed order, and/or documents 

upon the parties, which would include criminal pre-indictment 

matters, all Requests, proposed orders, and submitted documents 

Case 2:12-cv-00234-MCE-AC Document 85 Filed 02/11/15 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

shall be served on all parties on or before the day they are submitted 

to the Court. 

The rule further dictates that when the request, proposed order, and/or documents covered by the 

request are not served upon one or more parties, the request “shall set forth the basis for 

excluding any party from service.” L.R. 141(b). While the request sufficiently explains why 

plaintiff has not been provided with the unredacted confidential memoranda, it fails to address 

why he was not provided with copies of the request and proposed order. 

Additionally, while the court finds good cause for not serving plaintiff with unredacted 

copies of the three confidential memoranda, there is no indication that defendants have provided 

plaintiff with redacted copies of the documents. Defendants have offered no explanation as to 

why measures such as redaction and limited access would be insufficient to address security 

concerns. The defendants will therefore be given seven days from the date of this order to either 

serve plaintiff with copies of the request, proposed order, and redacted copies of the three 

confidential memoranda or explain why providing any or all of these documents is not 

appropriate. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. Defendant’s Request to File Documents Under Seal is granted and the unredacted 

confidential memoranda dated May 11, 2009; September 28, 2009; and February 2, 2010, shall be 

filed under seal. 

2. Within seven days of the filing of this order, the defendants shall either provide 

plaintiff with the Request to File Documents Under Seal, proposed order, and redacted copies of 

the three confidential memoranda or file a response explaining why providing plaintiff with any 

or all of these documents is not appropriate. If defendants choose to serve plaintiff with some or 

all of the documents indicated above, they shall promptly file a notice identifying which 

documents have been provided to plaintiff. If the documents provided to plaintiff include 

redacted copies of any of the confidential memoranda, a copy of the redacted document(s) should 

also be provided to the court in the same manner in which the request to file under seal was 

Case 2:12-cv-00234-MCE-AC Document 85 Filed 02/11/15 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

submitted. If the defendants believe production of any of the documents is inappropriate and that 

their response to this order contains sensitive information, their response may be submitted ex 

parte via email. 

DATED: February 10, 2015 

Case 2:12-cv-00234-MCE-AC Document 85 Filed 02/11/15 Page 3 of 3