Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00446/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00446-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Kenny James Arnold
Defendant
California Highway Patrol
Defendant
Tracy Mitchum
Plaintiff

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TRACY MITCHUM,

Plaintiff,

v.

KENNY JAMES ARNOLD, individually 

and in his capacity as a sworn peace officer 

of the California Highway Patrol,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:19-cv-00446-AWI-SKO

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

REQUEST TO SEAL DOCUMENTS IN 

ACCORDANCE WITH LOCAL RULE 141

(Doc. 18)

On June 2, 2020, Plaintiff’s counsel submitted a request to file under seal (the “Request to 

Seal”) a motion to withdraw as counsel for Plaintiff. (See Doc. 18.) Plaintiff’s counsel states that 

the motion to withdraw and accompanying declarations must be filed under seal because “they 

contain sensitive, privileged, and confidential information under the attorney-client privilege, 

work-product doctrine, and all other applicable rules of confidentiality[.]” (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff 

submitted the Request to Seal, motion to withdraw as counsel, and accompanying declarations to 

the Court and opposing counsel. 

Pursuant to Local Rule 141(b), a request to seal a document “shall set forth the statutory or 

other authority for sealing, the requested duration, the identity, by name or category, of persons to 

be permitted access to the documents, and all other relevant information.” L.R. 141(b). “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.’” Koloff v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., No. 

113CV02060AWIJLT, 2014 WL 12573330, at *1 (E.D. Cal. July 9, 2014) (quoting Pintos v. Pac. 

Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. Cal. 2010)). A party may submit an opposition to a 

request to seal documents within three days of the date of service of the request. L.R. 141(c).

Case 1:19-cv-00446-AWI-SKO Document 20 Filed 06/09/20 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

Defendant has not submitted an opposition to Plaintiff’s Request to Seal, and the time to do 

so has expired. Plaintiff’s Request to Seal is therefore deemed unopposed. Plaintiff has complied 

with Local Rule 141, and in view of the sensitive and confidential information contained in the 

motion to withdraw and accompanying declarations, the Court finds that good cause exists to allow 

Plaintiff to file under seal the motion to withdraw and accompanying declarations.

Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s unopposed Request to Seal (Doc. 

18), and ORDERS that the “Motion of Plaintiff’s Counsels . . . to Withdraw as Plaintiff’s Counsels; 

Supporting Declarations of Counsel” be FILED UNDER SEAL in accordance with Local Rule 

141(e)(2). Plaintiff’s counsel shall comply with Local Rule 141(e)(2)(i) to ensure the documents 

are filed on the docket under seal. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 8, 2020 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-00446-AWI-SKO Document 20 Filed 06/09/20 Page 2 of 2