Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-01998/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-01998-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEVEN BALE PERCELLE, 

Plaintiff,

 vs.

DR. ALAN ROSENTHAL, DR.

QUAN DINH, DR. C. KRISHNA, DR.

POMPAN, DR. M. FRIEDMAN, and

JOHN and JANE DOES of the review

committee, 

Defendants. /

No. C 05-1998 WHA (PR) 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

LEAVE TO FILE A MOTION TO

RECONSIDER AND GRANTING

MOTION TO FILE ADDRESSES

UNDER SEAL

This is a civil rights case filed pro se by a state prisoner. The Court granted in part and

denied in part plaintiff’s motion to compel and to determine sufficiency of discovery responses. 

Among other things, certain matters were deemed admitted because defendant Friedman did not

admit or deny the requests for admissions within the time allowed by the rule. See Fed.

R.Civ.P. 36(a). Defendant Friedman moved to reconsider the ruling as to the requests for

admissions directed to him. The motion was denied because Friedman had not obtained

permission to file a motion to reconsider as required by Local Rule Civ 7-9(a). In the same

order the case was referred to Magistrate Judge Nandor Vadas for mediation or settlement and

further proceedings except those related to the reference to Judge Vadas were stayed.

Friedman has now filed a motion for leave to file a motion to reconsider. The motion

(document number 54 on the docket) is DENIED because the case is stayed. The denial is

Case 3:05-cv-01998-WHA Document 57 Filed 10/23/07 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

without prejudice to refiling the motion when the stay is lifted.

The Attorney General has also filed the addresses of several defendants with a request

that they be maintained under seal. Among other things, he asserts that revealing current

addresses for former employees of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitations is a

matter of great concern because such addresses have previously been inadvertently revealed by

the marshal. Because of the importance of maintaining the security of the information, the

Court will rule on the motion despite the stay. The motion to maintain the filing under seal

(document number 55) is GRANTED. Because of the stay no further action will be ordered now,

but when the stay is lifted the Court will solicit suggestions from the Attorney General as to

how he proposes that the complaint be served without revealing the addresses to the marshal.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 22 , 2007. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

G:\PRO-SE\WHA\CR.05\PERCELLE998.SEAL.wpd 

Case 3:05-cv-01998-WHA Document 57 Filed 10/23/07 Page 2 of 2