Opinion
No. 2:15-cv-00538-GEB-CMK
07-13-2015
PASKENTA BAND OF NOMLAKI INDIANS; and PASKENTA ENTERPRISES CORPORATION, Plaintiffs, v. INES CROSBY; JOHN CROSBY; LESLIE LOHSE; LARRY LOHSE; TED PATA; JUAN PATA; CHRIS PATA; SHERRY MYERS; FRANK JAMES; UMPQUA BANK; UMPQUA HOLDINGS CORPORATION; CORNERSTONE COMMUNITY BANK; CORNERSTONE COMMUNITY BANCORP; JEFFERY FINCK; GARTH MOORE; HARTH MOORE INSURANCE AND FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC.; ASSOCIATED PENSION CONSULTANTS, INC.; HANESS & ASSOCIATES, LLC; ROBERT M. HANESS; THE PATRIOT GOLD & SILVER EXCHANGE, INC. and NORMAN R. RYAN, Defendants, SILVER QUICKEN LOANS, INC.; CRP 111 WEST 141ST LLC; CASTELLAN MANAGING MEMBER LLC; CRP WEST 168TH STREET LLC; and CRP SHERMAN AVENUE LLC, Nominal Defendants.
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' SEALING REQUEST
On July 10, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a Stipulation and Proposed Sealing Order, in which Plaintiffs seek to have sealed the documents in ECF No. 72-2, which consist of "the Declaration of Brandin Paya in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion [and] . . . an attached Exhibit A." (Stipulation & Proposed Order ("Stip.") 1:5-6, ECF No. 80.) Plaintiffs state the referenced filing "failed to redact certain private information, identifying information of Defendants', including full social security numbers, home addresses, dates of birth, and driver's license numbers," and contend since this "identifying information . . . may be readily accessed and used to perpetrate a criminal act," the documents should be sealed. (Id. 1:6-8; 1:12-13.)
This sealing request is overbroad since Plaintiffs have not shown why targeted redactions would be inadequate to protect the referenced private information, nor have they provided such redactions for the Court's consideration. "[G]iven our strong tradition of open court proceedings," a sealing order "should sweep no more broadly than necessary" to protect what is shown to be deserving of secrecy; and "the district court [is required to] consider alternatives to closure, such as redaction." U.S. v. Index Newspapers LLC, 766 F.3d 1072, 1095, 1096 (9th Cir. 2014).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2(a) authorized Plaintiffs to redact, without obtaining a court order, portions of the referenced social security numbers and the dates of birth they seek to seal, but Plaintiffs have not shown that all of the remaining portion of the sealing order they seek is a "closure remedy [that] is narrowly confined to protect th[e] interest[s]" sought to be protected from public disclosure. Perry v. City and County of San Francisco, No. 10-16696, 2011 WL 2419868, at *21 (9th Cir. 2011).
Since Plaintiffs have not addressed why the privacy interests involved in their sealing request could not be protected by proposed specified redactions to ECF No. 72-2, the sealing request is denied. Dated: July 13, 2015
/s/_________
GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.
Senior United States District Judge