Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02392/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02392-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 870
Nature of Suit: Tax Suits
Cause of Action: 26:7401 IRS: Tax Liability

---

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 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

ROBERT E. and KAREN M. 

O‟CONNOR, 

Defendants. 

No. 2:14-cv-02392-GEB-CMK 

ORDER 

On October 6, 2015, Defendants filed a motion to seal 

documents, seeking “to seal the previously filed Declaration of 

Robert E. O’Connor in Support of Opposition to Motion For Summary 

Judgment and attached exhibits, Document Number 19 on the docket 

in the above-captioned matter (the “Declaration”), as this 

document was inadvertently filed with the Court without all 

necessary redactions being finalized.” (Defs.’ Sealing Mot. 1:23-

26, ECF No. 22.) Defendants contend: “the Declaration and 

attached exhibits contain certain private information of 

Defendants and third parties including complete social security 

numbers, birth dates, and/or financial account numbers. The 

public does not have an interest in the disclosure of the abovedescribed private information.” (Id. 2:1-4.) Defendants 

“[f]urther[] . . . request that they be permitted to file a fully 

redacted version of the Declaration[,]” arguing “th[e] filing 

Case 2:14-cv-02392-GEB-CMK Document 24 Filed 10/08/15 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 

will not prejudice Plaintiff UNITED STATES, as it will be an 

identical version of the original Declaration, filed and served 

with the original opposition papers, except that it will redact 

permissible information under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

5.2(a).” (Id. at 2:4-8.) Notwithstanding Defendants’ request to 

file a redacted version, review of the docket reveals Defendants 

already filed a redacted version of the Declaration and exhibits 

in compliance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2(a) and 

Local Rule 140(a) on October 6, 2015. (See ECF No. 23.) 

Defendants’ sealing request is denied. However, the 

Clerk of the Court is directed to remove from the docket the 

originally filed Declaration of Robert E. O’Connor in Support of 

Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary 

Judgment, (ECF No. 19), with the unredacted exhibits since they 

contain information prohibited by Rule 5.2(a) and Local Rule 

140(a). See CBS, Inc. v. United States Dist. Court for the Cent. 

Dist. of Cal., 765 F.2d 823, 825-26 (9th Cir. 1985) (ordering 

“improvidently filed” document “retracted . . . from the 

[docket]”). 

Dated: October 7, 2015 

 

 

Case 2:14-cv-02392-GEB-CMK Document 24 Filed 10/08/15 Page 2 of 2