Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01178/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01178-10/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Chase, Inc.
Defendant
Ronald Moore
Plaintiff
Slater Shell
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RONALD MOORE, 

Plaintiff,

v.

CHASE, INC., d/b/a SLATER SHELL; and 

DOES 1-10,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:14-cv-01178-SKO

ORDER DENYING THE PARTIES’ 

STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER

ORDER THAT THE CLERK OF COURT 

SHALL SEAL DOCUMENTS FILED ON 

THE DOCKET 

ORDER THAT DEFENDANT SHALL 

REFILE REDACTED VERSIONS OF 

SEALED DOCUMENTS

On December 2, 2015, Plaintiff Ronald Moore (“Plaintiff”) filed his motion for sanctions 

against defense counsel. (Doc. 82.) On January 5, 2016, Defendant Chase, Inc. (“Defendant”) 

filed its opposition to Plaintiff’s motion as well as several declarations and accompanying 

exhibits. (Docs. 86; 87; 88.) On January 12, 2015, defense counsel filed a declaration informing 

the Court that he erroneously filed unredacted versions of Exhibits 6 and 7 to Defendant’s 

opposition to the motion for sanctions at Dockets 86-6 and 86-7. (Doc. 90.) 

Upon learning that the unredacted versions had been filed to the publicly accessible docket, 

the parties stipulated to a “protective order to seal” the exhibits. (Doc. 89.) However, as there is 

no mechanism for the parties to “stipulate” to seal exhibits already filed to the publicly accessible 

docket, the parties’ stipulated “protective order to seal” the exhibits must be DENIED. 

Case 1:14-cv-01178-SKO Document 95 Filed 01/15/16 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

The Court recognizes, however, that Plaintiff has an articulable privacy interest in his 

personal, private, identifying information, including his birthdate. See, e.g., Foltz v. State Farm 

Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1137 (9th Cir. 2003) (acknowledging privacy interests 

implicated by sensitive, personal identifying information). Because Plaintiff’s privacy interest in 

protecting this information is the type of “good cause” that outweighs the general history of access 

and the public policies favoring disclosure, Kamakana v. Cty. and Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 

1172m 1179-80 (9th Cir. 2006), the Court will on its own motion order that these documents be 

SEALED. Local Rule 141; Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2, 26. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. The parties’ stipulated protective order to seal the docket is DENIED; 

2. The Clerk of Court is ORDERED to SEAL Exhibit 6, Docket 86-6, and Exhibit 7, 

Docket 86-7, of Defendant’s opposition to the motion for sanctions; and

3. Defendant is ORDERED to RE-FILE and RE-SERVE redacted versions of Exhibit 

6, Docket 86-6, and Exhibit 7, Docket 86-7, of Defendant’s opposition to the 

motion for sanctions within 2 days of the filing of this order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 14, 2016 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01178-SKO Document 95 Filed 01/15/16 Page 2 of 2