From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Olson v. Slote

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Oct 30, 2022
2:16-cv-956-KJM-EFB PS (E.D. Cal. Oct. 30, 2022)

Opinion

2:16-cv-956-KJM-EFB PS

10-30-2022

KIMBERLY R. OLSON, Plaintiff, v. PATRICIA SLOTE, et al., Defendants.


ORDER

On September 25, 2020, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Plaintiff subsequently filed objections together with a request to file a declaration under seal. The magistrate judge denied without prejudice plaintiff's request to seal for failure to comply with Local Rule 141 but granted plaintiff seven days to file a properly supported request to seal. ECF No. 9.

Plaintiff has since filed a renewed request to file her declaration under seal. ECF No. 11. She contends that her declaration should be sealed because it contains personal medical information. Plaintiff's request to seal is granted. See Chester v. King, No. 1:16-cv-01257, 2019 WL 5420213, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Sep. 10, 2019) (“This court, and others within the Ninth Circuit, have recognized that the need to protect medical privacy qualifies as a ‘compelling reason' for sealing records.”). In reviewing the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations, the undersigned has considered plaintiff's declaration and her October 2, 2020 objections. The medical information in the declaration supports plaintiff's argument that she should be granted further leave to amend her complaint.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having reviewed the file, and plaintiff's declaration under seal in particular, the court adopts the findings and recommendations in part. The complaint is dismissed with leave to amend to allow plaintiff one last attempt to cure the deficiencies identified in the findings and recommendations. See Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 8(d)(1) (“Each allegation must be simple, concise, and direct.”); see also Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 84.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff's request to file her declaration under seal (ECF No. 11) is granted, and the clerk of court is directed to file the declaration under seal;
2. The Findings and Recommendations filed September 25, 2020, are adopted in part;
3. Plaintiff's first amended complaint (ECF No. 7) is dismissed with leave to amend within 21 days; and
4. This matter is referred again to the assigned Magistrate Judge for all further pretrial proceedings.


Summaries of

Olson v. Slote

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Oct 30, 2022
2:16-cv-956-KJM-EFB PS (E.D. Cal. Oct. 30, 2022)
Case details for

Olson v. Slote

Case Details

Full title:KIMBERLY R. OLSON, Plaintiff, v. PATRICIA SLOTE, et al., Defendants.

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Oct 30, 2022

Citations

2:16-cv-956-KJM-EFB PS (E.D. Cal. Oct. 30, 2022)

Citing Cases

Olson v. Hornbrook Cmty. Servs. Dist.

Plaintiff's complaints in other cases have been dismissed for failure to comply with Rule 8. See, e.g.,…

Olson v. Hornbrook Cmty. Servs. Dist.

See, e.g., Order, Olson v. Hornbrook Community Services, No. 15-646 (May 17, 2017), ECF No. 9; Order, Olson…