Opinion
23-cv-00273-JCS
12-11-2023
REBECCA WASHAM, et al., Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant.
ORDER DENYING ADMINISTRATIVE
MOTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Re: Dkt. No. 34
JOSEPH C. SPERO UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
On November 29, 2023, the Court ordered Plaintiffs to “file a redacted version of the Petition [for Approval of Minor's Compromise] and supporting papers that redacts all confidential information and to file an administrative motion to file the unredacted papers under seal pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5. In response to the Court's order, Plaintiffs filed an administrative motion to seal (“Motion”) but incorrectly interpreted that Order as authorizing them to file the Petition, in its entirety, under seal, invoking Civ. L. R. 79-5(b) (“A party need not file a motion to seal if . . . a prior court order in the same case expressly authorizes the party to file certain documents (or portions of documents) under seal.”). While the Court provisionally locked the unredacted Petition, it did not authorize Plaintiffs to file the Petition under seal in its entirety. Therefore, the Motion is DENIED without prejudice.
Plaintiffs shall file a renewed administrative motion to seal that is in compliance with the general procedure set forth in Civil Local Rule 79-5, which requires, inter alia, that such a motion identify the specific portions of the Petition that are sealable and be accompanied by a declaration establishing that it is proper to redact those portions of the Petition from the publicly available version of the document. The Court notes that the administrative motion itself should not be filed under seal, though the attachments to the motion may be filed under seal if appropriate (e.g., the unredacted versions of the documents sought to be filed under seal).
For guidance, Plaintiffs are referred to M.G. v. Bodum, C-19-1069 JCS, docket nos. 88 (order addressing standard that governs sealing of dispositive motions related to settlements) and 89 (administrative motion to seal portions of a petition for approval of minor's settlement that the Court found to be compliant with Civ. L.R. 79-5 and applicable legal standards).
IT IS SO ORDERED.