Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-02150/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-02150-7/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
City of Roseville
Defendant
Daniel Hahn
Defendant
Stephan Moore
Defendant
Janelle Perez
Plaintiff
Roseville Police Department
Defendant
Cal Walstad
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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JANELLE PEREZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF ROSEVILLE; ROSEVILLE 

POLICE DEPARTMENT; CHIEF 

DANIEL HAHN, an individual; 

CAPTAIN STEPHAN MOORE, an 

individual; and LIEUTENANT 

CAL WALSTAD, an individual;

Defendants.

No. 2:13-cv-02150-GEB-DAD

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

SEALING REQUEST 

On April 27, 2015, Plaintiff filed a Request to Seal 

Documents, in which she states in relevant part as follows:

On January 21, 2015, this Court entered 

a Protective Order (Doc. #20) which barred 

from public dissemination any personnel 

information of individuals “who are or were

City employees and who are not parties to 

this lawsuit.” Based on that definition, 

Plaintiff believes portions of the materials 

she intends to submit in opposition to 

Defendants‟ Motion for Summary Judgment fall 

under the rules and guidelines for submitting 

documents under seal.

Thus, Plaintiff respectfully requests 

this Court file the following documents 

(which are attached to the supporting 

declaration of Sean D. O‟Dowd in Opposition 

to Defendants‟ Motion for Summary Judgment, 

submitted herewith) under seal:

a. Excerpts from Volume II of the 

Deposition of Daniel Hahn;

Case 2:13-cv-02150-KJM-DB Document 44 Filed 04/28/15 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

2

b. Excerpts from Volume II of the 

Deposition of Stefan Moore

c. Certain documents produced by 

Defendants, specifically, 

“Roseville 1077-1134.”

3. These documents are consecutively 

paginated from 1-70.

The aforementioned documents are 

requested to be sealed pursuant to the 

Eastern District of California Local Rule 140 

(Privacy Concerns and Redaction) and 141 

(Sealing of Documents), as well as Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 5.2 (Privacy Protection for Filing 

Made with the Court).

(Pl.‟s Req. Seal, ECF No. 42.)

Plaintiff neither “e-mailed to the [undersigned] 

Judge[‟s] . . . proposed orders e-mail box[,]” nor “submitted on 

paper to the Clerk” the documents sought to be sealed for in 

camera review as prescribed in Local Rule 141(b). Also, Plaintiff 

filed on the public docket portions of Daniel Hahn and Stefan 

Moore‟s depositions in support of her opposition. Therefore, it 

is unclear whether Plaintiff desires to have sealed what she has 

already publically filed or whether Plaintiff seeks to file under 

seal additional portions of the referenced individuals‟ 

depositions. 

Further, Plaintiff neither discusses the applicable 

sealing standard in her Request to Seal Documents, nor

demonstrates that it has been met. See E.D. Cal. 141(b) (“The 

„Request to Seal Documents‟ shall set forth the statutory or 

other authority for sealing . . . .”). “[A] party seeking to seal 

a [document] attached to a dispositive motion or one that is 

presented at trial must articulate „compelling reasons‟ in favor 

of sealing.” Williams v. U.S. Bank Ass‟n, 290 F.R.D. 600, 604 

Case 2:13-cv-02150-KJM-DB Document 44 Filed 04/28/15 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

3

(E.D. Cal. 2013) (quoting Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of Honolulu, 

447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006)).

[Plaintiff] cannot provide the compelling 

reasons necessary to justify the . . . 

sealing of [the referenced documents] with a 

few generalized, sweeping sentences. [She] 

needed (and failed) to specifically address 

why each document contained . . . information 

of such a compelling nature as to overcome 

the strong presumption of public access.

In re LDK Solar Secs. Litig., No. C 07-05182 WHA, 2010 WL 724809, 

at *1 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 1, 2010).

For the stated reasons, Plaintiff‟s sealing request is 

DENIED.

Dated: April 28, 2015

Case 2:13-cv-02150-KJM-DB Document 44 Filed 04/28/15 Page 3 of 3