Bell v. United States Dep't of Interior

Full title: YOLANDA YVETTE BELL, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES DEP'T OF INTERIOR…

Court: United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California

Date published: Aug 2, 2013

2:12-cv-01414 TLN JFM (PS) (E.D. Cal. Aug. 2, 2013)

Opinion

YOLANDA YVETTE BELL, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES DEP'T OF INTERIOR, KENNETH SALAZAR, Secretary, Defendants. No. 2:12-cv-01414 TLN JFM (PS) United States District Court, E.D. California. August 2, 2013

          ORDER

          EDMUND F. BRENNAN, Magistrate Judge.

         The following motions are presently calendared for hearing on August 7, 2013: plaintiff's motion to quash, second motion to quash, and amended motion to quash (ECF Nos. 86, 87 and 101), plaintiff's motion for protective order and amended motion for protective order (ECF Nos. 96 and 100), defendants' motion to compel independent medical examination (ECF No. 102) and defendants' motion for protective order (ECF No. 103).

         The court notes that the parties' most recent motions, ECF Nos. 100-103, do not comply with the Local Rules that require scheduling a hearing at least twenty-one days from the date of filing, or fourteen days from the date of filing when applicable. L.R. 251. Nevertheless, the court is mindful that judicial efficiency is best served by hearing the parties' motions concurrently, and will therefore not vacate the August 7, 2013, hearing. The parties will be ordered to submit oppositions or non-oppositions to these motions no later than August 5, 2013.

         Additionally, given plaintiff's recent request to seal documents, the court notes that plaintiff failed to comply with Local Rule 140 and properly redact¹ the following exhibits in her most recent motions: ECF No. 96-8 at 1, 6-8, 12-13; ECF No. 96-13 at 1, 5-6; ECF No. 100-9 at 5, 11, 15-16, 18, 22-23, 25, 29-30, 32, 36-37, 39, 43-44; ECF No. 100-12 at 1, 5-6; ECF No. 100-17 at 3-5, 9; ECF No. 100-18 at 3-5, 9; ECF No. 101-5 at 5, 11, 15-16, 18, 22-23, 25, 29-30, 32, 36-37, 39, 44. The court will not sua sponte seal these documents.² However, plaintiff will be permitted to file a request to re-file partially redacted versions of these exhibits in accordance with the Local Rules.

1 The court notes that plaintiff attempted to redact some of these exhibits. However, the redactions are not permanent and will reveal plaintiff's personal data identifiers if a party were to delete the redactions using the Adobe Acrobat's delete function.

2 See L.R. 140(e) ("Neither the Clerk nor the Court will review filed documents for compliance with privacy or other protective law, nor will the Court as a matter of course seal on its own motion documents containing personal data identifiers, or redact documents, whether filed electronically or on paper. No procedure set forth herein will excuse a violation of privacy or other law by counsel or party.").

         Both parties are cautioned that future failure to abide by the court's Local Rules and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure "may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or within the inherent power of the Court." L.R. 110, 183(a).

         Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendants' oppositions, or non-oppositions, to plaintiff's amended motion for protective order (ECF No. 100) and amended motion to quash (ECF No. 101) are due no later than August 5, 2013. Plaintiff shall be permitted to reply during oral argument on August 7, 2013; and

2. Plaintiff's oppositions, or non-oppositions, to defendants' motion to compel independent medical examination (ECF No. 102) and motion for protective order (ECF No. 103) are due no later than August 5, 2013. Defendants shall be permitted to reply during oral argument on August 7, 2013.