From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Couch v. Cate

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Aug 30, 2011
1:08cv1621 LJO DLB (E.D. Cal. Aug. 30, 2011)

Opinion

1:08cv1621 LJO DLB

08-30-2011

RYAN COUCH, et al., Plaintiff, v. MATTHEW CATE, et al., Defendants.


ORDER DENYING REQUEST TO

SEAL DOCUMENTS WITHOUT PREJUDICE

(Document 162)

On August 26, 2011, Plaintiffs Ryan Couch and Kenneth Jimenez ("Plaintiffs") filed a request to seal documents relating to motion to compel. Although the request cites Local Rule 141, the blanket request to seal the documents does not comply with the requirements of Rule 141. Generally, it is only appropriate to seal documents or portions of portions of briefing, declarations and/or exhibits which actually contain confidential information. The request to seal must identify these specific portions and set forth justification for sealing them. Plaintiffs must therefore identify the specific portions of the documents, by page number and without reference to their content, sought to be sealed. The Court not will review hundreds of pages of documents to determine what portions are proper for sealing.

Accordingly, the Court DENIES the request WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Plaintiffs may file a renewed request that complies with this Order. The Court will not file any documents at this time.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dennis L. Beck

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE


Summaries of

Couch v. Cate

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Aug 30, 2011
1:08cv1621 LJO DLB (E.D. Cal. Aug. 30, 2011)
Case details for

Couch v. Cate

Case Details

Full title:RYAN COUCH, et al., Plaintiff, v. MATTHEW CATE, et al., Defendants.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Aug 30, 2011

Citations

1:08cv1621 LJO DLB (E.D. Cal. Aug. 30, 2011)