Mitchum v. California Highway Patrol

4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA TRACY MITCHUM, Case No. 1:19-cv-00446-AWI-SKO 8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST TO SEAL DOCUMENTS IN 9 v. ACCORDANCE WITH LOCAL RULE 141 KENNY JAMES ARNOLD, individually and in his capacity as a sworn peace officer of the California Highway Patrol, (Doc. 18) 12 Defendant.

On June 2, 2020, Plaintiff’s counsel submitted a request to file under seal (the “Request to Seal”) a motion to withdraw as counsel for Plaintiff. (See Doc. 18.) Plaintiff’s counsel states that the motion to withdraw and accompanying declarations must be filed under seal because “they contain sensitive, privileged, and confidential information under the attorney-client privilege, work-product doctrine, and all other applicable rules of confidentiality[.]” (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff submitted the Request to Seal, motion to withdraw as counsel, and accompanying declarations to the Court and opposing counsel.

Pursuant to Local Rule 141(b), a request to seal a document “shall set forth the statutory or other authority for sealing, the requested duration, the identity, by name or category, of persons to be permitted access to the documents, and all other relevant information.” L.R. 141(b). “Only if good cause exists may the Court seal the information from public view after balancing ‘the needs for discovery against the need for confidentiality.’” Koloff v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., No. 113CV02060AWIJLT, 2014 WL 12573330, at *1 (E.D. Cal. July 9, 2014) (quoting Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. Cal. 2010)). A party may submit an opposition to a request to seal documents within three days of the date of service of the request. L.R. 141(c).

1 Defendant has not submitted an opposition to Plaintiff’s Request to Seal, and the time to do so has expired. Plaintiff’s Request to Seal is therefore deemed unopposed. Plaintiff has complied with Local Rule 141, and in view of the sensitive and confidential information contained in the motion to withdraw and accompanying declarations, the Court finds that good cause exists to allow Plaintiff to file under seal the motion to withdraw and accompanying declarations.

6 Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s unopposed Request to Seal (Doc.

7 18), and ORDERS that the “Motion of Plaintiff’s Counsels . . . to Withdraw as Plaintiff’s Counsels; Supporting Declarations of Counsel” be FILED UNDER SEAL in accordance with Local Rule 141(e)(2). Plaintiff’s counsel shall comply with Local Rule 141(e)(2)(i) to ensure the documents are filed on the docket under seal.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Sheila K. Oberto Dated: June 8, 2020 /s/ .

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE