Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-02150/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-02150-9/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, and individual; 

CAPTAIN STEPHAN MOORE, an 

individual; and LIEUTENANT 

CAL WALSTAD, an individual,

Defendants.

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

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 

REQUEST TO FILE REDACTED 

DOCUMENTS

On May 1, 2015, Plaintiff submitted a proposed order 

that would authorize redaction of certain documents referenced in 

her opposition to Defendants‟ summary judgment motion. Plaintiff 

asserts in the proposed order that the good cause standard 

applies to her redaction request and refers to the referenced

documents in a publicly filed Request for Order Allowing 

Redaction as follows: 

a. Additional excerpts from the Deposition of 

Daniel Hahn (Exhibit A to the Declaration of 

Sean O‟Dowd); 

b. Additional [e]xcerpts from the Deposition 

of Stefan Moore (Exhibit G to the Declaration 

of Sean O‟Dowd); 

Case 2:13-cv-02150-KJM-DB Document 49 Filed 05/05/15 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

c. Doe #3‟s field training evaluations, 

specifically “Roseville 1077-1134” (Exhibit L 

to the Declaration of Sean O‟Dowd).

(Pl.‟s Request Order Allowing Redaction of Information 2:3-8, ECF 

No. 47.) Plaintiff should know by now that the good cause 

standard is the wrong standard to be applied to the pending 

motion. Plaintiff has been informed in two previous orders that 

that applicable standard requires “a party seeking to seal a 

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

presented at trial [to] articulate „compelling reasons‟ in favor 

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

(E.D. Cal. 2013) (emphasis added) (quoting Kamakana v. City and 

Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 11172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006)). The 

requested redacted filing is authorized under the compelling 

reasons standard with the understanding that the name of the 

individual referenced in what Plaintiff refers to as “Roseville 

1077-1134,” is replaced with the pseudonym Doe #3. Plaintiff has 

not shown how the individual or individuals referenced in what 

Plaintiff refers to as “additional excerpts from the Deposition 

of Daniel Hahn” and “additional excerpts from the Deposition of 

Stefan Moore,” will be referenced, so this portion of the filing 

needs clarification and it is Plaintiff‟s responsibility to make 

the record pellucid. However, redacted copies of the documents 

may be filed.

Dated: May 4, 2015

Case 2:13-cv-02150-KJM-DB Document 49 Filed 05/05/15 Page 2 of 2