Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01751/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01751-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
City of Anderson
Defendant
City of Anderson Police Department
Defendant
Michael Johnson
Defendant
Gerald Knighten
Plaintiff
Sean Miller
Defendant

Document Text:

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 

 BARR & MUDFORD

 Attorneys at Law 

 1824 Court Street 

 Post Office Box 994390 

 Redding, CA 96099-4390 

 (530) 243-8008

Page 1 

Request to Seal Police Report Filed as Exhibit A to Opposition to Dfdts’ Motion to Dismiss

JOHN DOUGLAS BARR ............... California State Bar No. 40663 

TROY DOUGLAS MUDFORD ..... California State Bar No. 156392 

ESTEE LEWIS..................................California State Bar No. 268358 

CATHLEEN THERESA BARR ....... California State Bar No. 295538 

BARR & MUDFORD, LLP 

1824 Court Street/Post Office Box 994390 

Redding, California 96099-4390 

Telephone: (530) 243-8008 Facsimile: (530) 243-1648 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

GERALD KNIGHTEN, 

 Plaintiff, 

 vs. 

THE CITY OF ANDERSON; THE CITY OF 

ANDERSON POLICE 

DEPARTMENT, MICHAEL JOHNSON in 

his official capacity as Chief of Police for the 

City of Anderson Police Department; and 

SEAN MILLER, individually and in his 

official capacity as a Police Officer with the 

City of Anderson Police Department. 

 Defendants. 

NO. 2:15-CV-01751-TLN-CMK 

PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST TO SEAL 

THE POLICE REPORT ATTACHED 

AS EXHIBIT A TO PLAINTIFF’S 

OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT THE 

CITY OF ANDERSON, THE CITY OF 

ANDERSON POLICE DEPARTMENT, 

AND MICHAEL JOHNSON’S MOTION 

TO DISMISS; ORDER THERETO 

Date : November 5, 2015 

Time : 2:00 p.m. 

Dept : 2 

Judge: Honorable Troy L. Nunley 

Plaintiff requests to seal the Police Report authored by Redding Police Department 

Officer, Edward Gilmette, which is attached as Exhibit A to Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendants 

City of Anderson’s Motion to Dismiss. (Court Doc. 11.) Plaintiff makes this request because 

the police report contains the birthdates of plaintiff and the two gentlemen that witnessed the 

event that resulted in this lawsuit. 

Case 2:15-cv-01751-TLN-CMK Document 14 Filed 10/26/15 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 

 BARR & MUDFORD

 Attorneys at Law 

 1824 Court Street 

 Post Office Box 994390 

 Redding, CA 96099-4390 

 (530) 243-8008

Page 2 

Request to Seal Police Report Filed as Exhibit A to Opposition to Dfdts’ Motion to Dismiss

1. Legal Authority 

The request to seal documents is controlled by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). 

The Rule permits the Court to issue orders to “protect a party or person from annoyance, 

embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense, including . . . requiring that a trade 

secret or other confidential research, development, or commercial information not be revealed or 

be revealed only in a specified way.” Only if good cause exists may the Court seal the 

information from public view after balancing “the needs for discovery against the need for 

confidentiality.’” Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. Cal. 2010) 

(quoting Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1213 (9th Cir. 

2002)). Generally, documents filed in civil cases are presumed to be available to the public. 

EEOC v. Erection Co., 900 F.2d 168, 170 (9th Cir. 1990); see also Kamakana v. City and County 

of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir.2006); Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 331 

F.3d 1122, 1134 (9th Cir.2003). Documents may be sealed only when the compelling reasons 

for doing so outweigh the public’s right of access. (EEOC at 170.) In evaluating the request, the 

Court considers the “public interest in understanding the judicial process and whether disclosure 

of the material could result in improper use of the material for scandalous or libelous purposes or 

infringement upon trade secrets.” Valley Broadcasting Co. v. United States District Court, 798 

F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1986). 

2. Request To Seal 

Plaintiff requests that the Court seal page one and page three of the police report attached 

as Exhibit A to Plaintiff’s opposition to Defendants City of Anderson’s 12(b)6 Motion to 

Dismiss. 

 Page one and three of the police report contain the birthdates of plaintiff and the two 

witnesses listed in the police report. Per FRCP 52 and Local Rule 140, all filers must redact 

dates of birth. Based on this rule, this Court finds that the compelling reasons for sealing dates of 

Case 2:15-cv-01751-TLN-CMK Document 14 Filed 10/26/15 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 

 BARR & MUDFORD

 Attorneys at Law 

 1824 Court Street 

 Post Office Box 994390 

 Redding, CA 96099-4390 

 (530) 243-8008

Page 3 

Request to Seal Police Report Filed as Exhibit A to Opposition to Dfdts’ Motion to Dismiss

birth outweigh the public’s right of access. Plaintiff inadvertently attached the police report 

without redacting the dates of birth of Plaintiff and of the two witnesses from the police report. 

 The redacted police report is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 

DATED: October 26, 2015 BARR & MUDFORD, LLP 

 /s/ CATHLEEN THERESA BARR 

 JOHN DOUGLAS BARR 

 CATHLEEN THERESA BARR 

 Attorneys for Plaintiff 

ORDER 

 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that pages 1 and 3 of the Police Report, attached as Exhibit 

A to Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendants City of Anderson’s Motion to Dismiss (Court Doc. 11) 

be, and hereby is, redacted. 

DATED: October 26, 2015 

Case 2:15-cv-01751-TLN-CMK Document 14 Filed 10/26/15 Page 3 of 3