Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00079/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00079-5/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Baron Bower
Plaintiff
Foster Farms
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

BARON BOWER,

Plaintiff,

v.

FOSTER FARMS,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:15-cv-00079-GEB-SAB

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR IN CAMERA REVIEW AND 

GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR 

AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO PAY THE 

FILING FEE

(ECF No. 18)

PAYMENT DUE APRIL 1, 2015

Plaintiff Baron Bower (“Plaintiff”), appearing pro se in this action, filed the complaint in 

this action on January 16, 2015. (ECF No. 1.) The Court recommended on March 11, 2015, that 

Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis be denied and he is to pay the filing fee or 

file objections within fourteen days. On March 19, 2015, the Court issued findings and 

recommendations that Defendant’s motion to dismiss be granted without leave to amend. On 

this same date, Plaintiff filed a motion to review the unredacted settlement agreement and 

requested that he be granted until April 1, 2015 to pay the filing fee in this action.

Initially, the Court shall grant Plaintiff’s request to have an extension to pay the filing fee 

in this action. 

Plaintiff also seeks in camera review of the unredacted settlement agreement that was 

filed with Defendant’s motion to dismiss “to enable [him] to ascertain value.” (ECF No. 18 at 

Case 1:15-cv-00079-GEB-SAB Document 19 Filed 03/23/15 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

1.) To the extent that Plaintiff is seeking to examine the document without redaction, “in camera 

review means that the judge may, in private, without others present,” read records which are in 

dispute. 1 Fed. Info. Discl. § 8:26. Documents that are not subject to privilege may be obtained 

by a plaintiff by means of a proper discovery request. Plaintiff’s request to review the settlement 

in camera is denied. 

To the extent that Plaintiff requests the Court to conduct an in camera review of the 

settlement agreement as proffered by Defendant in the motion to dismiss, the Court took judicial 

notice of the unredacted settlement agreement which he filed in Bower v. Foster Farms Dairy, 

1:07-cv-0917-LJO-SMS. (Findings and Recommendations Recommending Granting 

Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss 4 n.2, ECF No. 17.) The Court did not find it necessary to 

review the settlement agreement in camera to decide the motion to dismiss.

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s request to review the settlement request in camera is DENIED; 

2. Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time to April 1, 2015 to pay the filing fee is 

GRANTED; and

3. Plaintiff is advised that failure to pay the filing fee or file objections in 

compliance with this order and the March 11, 2015 findings and recommendation 

will result in this action being dismissed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 23, 2015 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00079-GEB-SAB Document 19 Filed 03/23/15 Page 2 of 2