L.V.Q. v. The GEO Group, Inc.

8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA L.V.Q., Case No. 1:24-cv-0656-KES-CDB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S UNOPPOSED REQUEST TO SEAL 13 v. DOCUMENTS THE GEO GROUP, INC., (Docs. 39, 41, 42) 15 Defendant. 5-DAY DEADLINE 17 Pending before the Court is Defendant The GEO Group, Inc.’s (“Defendant”) request to seal documents, filed on July 22, 2025 (Doc. 41) and amended notice of errata in support thereof (Doc. 42) and emailed to the undersigned’s chambers1, along with Defendant’s Request to Seal Documents, declaration of counsel for Defendant in support thereof, and the documents sought to be sealed. Defendant requests the Court seal its documents filed in connection with Defendant’s motion to appoint guardian ad litem (Doc. 39) which were inadvertently filed with unredacted confidential or protected information: (1) the Declaration of counsel for Defendant Deann R. Rivard, (2) Exhibit A thereto, and (3) Exhibit B thereto.

24 (Doc. 41 at 1). Defendant represents these documents contain information that should have been redacted pursuant to the June 5, 2024, order granting Plaintiff’s ex parte motion to proceed under pseudonym and 27 1 Although counsel for Defendant transmitted the documents only to the chambers of the assigned district judge, the documents were forwarded to the undersigned by the assigned district judge’s chambers staff.

1 for protective order (see Doc. 6) and that Defendant “should have requested an order granting a sealing and/or redaction request prior to filing.” Id. at 2. Defendant requests the Court grant this sealing request and direct the Clerk of the Court to seal or otherwise restrict access to these documents. Id. Attached to Defendant’s amended notice of errata are the redacted versions of the affected materials. (Doc. 42 at 3- 19).

6 The Court has considered the factors set forth in Oregonian Publ’g Co. v. U.S. Dist. Court for Dist. of Or., 920 F.2d 1462 (9th Cir. 1990). The Court finds that, for the reasons stated in Defendant’s request and amended notice of errata, sealing the declaration of Defendant’s counsel and Exhibits A and B attached to Defendant’s motion to appoint guardian ad litem, documents of which contain sensitive information that should have been redacted pursuant to the Court’s order (see Doc. 6), serves a compelling interest. The Court further finds that, in the absence of closure, the compelling interests identified by Defendant in its request would be harmed. In light of the public filing of the redacted documents (Doc.

13 42), the Court further finds that there are no additional alternatives to sealing the unredacted filings of the declaration of Defendant’s counsel and Exhibits A and B attached to Defendant’s motion to appoint guardian ad litem that would adequately protect the compelling interests identified by Defendant.

16 Conclusion and Order 17 Accordingly, pursuant to Local Rule 141 and based upon the representations contained in the Defendant’s Notice and request (Doc. 41) and amended notice of errata (Doc. 42), IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the unredacted filings of the declaration of Defendant’s counsel and Exhibits A and B attached to Defendant’s motion to appoint guardian ad litem (Doc. 39-1 at 1-17) shall be SEALED until further order of this Court; 22 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED within (5) days of issuance of this Order, Defendant shall submit a copy of this Order, its Request to Seal Documents, and the unredacted documents to be sealed by email to the Operations Section of the Clerk of the Court: [email protected]; and /// /// /// 1 The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to lock and make inaccessible to all CM/ECF users the || Declaration of Deann R. Rivard and attached exhibits (Doc. 39-1).

3 || IT IS SO ORDERED. “|| Dated: _ August 4, 2025 | nnd Rr 5 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE