Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-01155/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-01155-21/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARCELINO CALDERON-SILVA,

Plaintiff,

v.

B. DELEON, C. CARRILLO, and 

A. GUZMAN,

Defendants.

No. 2:11-cv-01155-GEB-EFB

ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANTS’ 

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

Defendants move for reconsideration of the January 28, 

2016 Order Denying Defendants’ Motion for Protective Order and/or 

Order Authorizing Redaction (“Order”). Defendants argue the Order

should be reconsidered because they intend to use the referenced 

redacted documents “for purposes of impeachment[;]” therefore, 

they were not required to be listed in their Pretrial Statement 

or the Pretrial Order. (Defs.’ Mot. for Recons. 3:26-4:11, ECF 

No. 112.) Defendants further argue that “[s]ince documents used 

for impeachment purposes are not required to be listed in a 

Pretrial Statement, . . . the failure to request a Protective 

Order in the[ir] Pretrial Statement [under Local Rule 

141.1(b)(2)] should be excused.” (Id. at 4:12-14.) These 

contentions could be correct, and to the extent the Order 

indicates Defendants may not pursue the redactions they desire

Case 2:11-cv-01155-GEB-EFB Document 113 Filed 02/05/16 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

for these reasons, that portion of the Order is withdrawn. 

Further, Defendants state for the first time that “Defendants 

provided [Plaintiff] with redacted copies of the [subject 

documents] on January 12, 2016[, and he] did not object to 

the[ir] use . . . at trial.” (Id. at 4:26-5:1.)

However, as the Court previously informed Defendants in 

the Order, Defendants have not submitted the subject redacted and 

unredacted documents to the Court for its consideration in 

camera; therefore, it is impossible for the Court to determine

whether each proposed redaction is appropriate under applicable 

redaction/sealing law. 

Principles governing the redaction of trial evidence 

place the burden on the party seeking the redactions to make a 

compelling showing of particularized need to justify the 

nondisclosure of each proposed redaction. The Ninth Circuit 

states in Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of Honolulu 447 F.3d 1172, 

1180 (9th Cir. 2006): “Those who seek to maintain the secrecy of 

documents attached to dispositive [matters] must meet the high 

threshold of showing that ‘compelling reasons’ support secrecy.” 

Therefore, when such redactions are sought, “a district court 

must ‘base its decision on a compelling reason and articulate the 

factual basis for its ruling, without relying on hypothesis or 

conjecture.’” Id. at 1182 (quoting Hagestad v. Tragesser, 49 F.3d 

1430, 1434 (9th Cir. 1995)). The movant for such redactions is 

expected to submit a proposed order containing the referenced 

factual findings that can be filed on the public docket unless 

the movant justifies filing all or part of the sealing order 

under seal. Obviously, a judge cannot make the required findings 

Case 2:11-cv-01155-GEB-EFB Document 113 Filed 02/05/16 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

without seeing the unredacted document so that he or she 

understands what is being redacted and the need for the 

redaction. See also Perry v. City & Cnty. of S.F., No. 10-16696, 

2011 WL 2419868, at *21 (9th Cir. 2011) (“[A]ny interest 

justifying closure must be specified with particularity, and 

there must be [a showing] that the [closure requested] is 

narrowly confined to protect that interest.” (emphasis omitted) 

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted)).

For the stated reasons, Defendants’ reconsideration 

motion is granted. The portion of the Order concerning the 

timeliness of Defendants’ redaction request and the omission of 

the subject documents from Defendants’ Pretrial Statement and the 

Pretrial Order is withdrawn. The portion of the Order regarding 

the need for the redaction movant to submit proposed redacted and 

unredacted documents to the Court for its consideration in camera 

is affirmed. 

Dated: February 5, 2016

Case 2:11-cv-01155-GEB-EFB Document 113 Filed 02/05/16 Page 3 of 3