Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01611/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01611-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332fc Diversity - Foreclosure

---

1

17-mc-0939

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PETER RONALD SOLLENNE,

Plaintiff,

v.

JAY K. BRAY, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 17-mc-0939

ORDER VACATING ORDER TO 

SHOW CAUSE; DENYING 

MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE 

ORDER

[ECF NO. 3]

On July 7, 2017, Plaintiff submitted for filing a document he titled a “Bill in 

Equity,” but which appears to be, for all intents and purposes, a civil complaint. 

The Bill in Equity was filed as a miscellaneous filing rather than as a civil case. 

Thus, the lesser filing fee of $47.00 was applied rather than the full civil filing fee

of $400.00. The Court therefore issued an OSC requiring Plaintiff to either pay the 

rest of the $400.00 filing fee, or submit a motion for leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis if he could not afford to do so. (ECF No. 3.)

On August 4, 2017, Plaintiff paid the full civil filing fee. ECF No. 4; Decl. 

Attesting Filing Fee Paid. Accordingly, the Court VACATES the OSC and directs 

the clerk to assign this case a civil case number, district judge and magistrate judge 

Case 3:17-cv-01611-WQH-WVG Document 5 Filed 08/09/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

17-mc-0939

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

in accordance with CivLR 40.1.a.

Next, Plaintiff purported to file the Bill in Equity “Under Seal/ Under Protective 

Order. The Clerk has provisionally sealed the case in light of Plaintiff’s request. 

The only request for a protective order that arguably has been presented to the 

Court is the “Prayer for Protective Order” that appears at pages 150-151 of the Bill 

in Equity. Bill in Equity (ECF 1-2) at 150-51. In it, Plaintiff alleges he seeks a 

protective order “for entry of private proprietary evidence that is confidential 

commercial information and trade secrets that can harm the public.” Id. at 151. 

Pro se pleadings are interpreted liberally, and the Bill in Equity appears to assert 

claims sounding in foreclosure relief. Although its 162 pages appear to contain 

various letters, recorded documents, certified mail returns, and the like, the Court 

cannot discern on the basis of Plaintiff’s representation in the Prayer for Protective 

Order that there are compelling reasons for sealing the Bill in Equity. See Pintos 

v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2010) (explaining that to 

limit the common law right of access, “a party seeking to seal judicial records must 

show that ‘compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings ... outweigh 

the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure.’”).

Therefore, the Court DENIES without prejudice Plaintiff’s request for a 

protective order and directs the Clerk to unseal this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 9, 2017

Case 3:17-cv-01611-WQH-WVG Document 5 Filed 08/09/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2