Opinion
2:21-cv-0731 KJM AC P
01-25-2023
CHAKONG THAO, et al., Plaintiffs, v. JEFF LYNCH, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
ALLISON CLAIRE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Defendant has filed a Notice of Request to Seal Documents in which she seeks the filing under seal of three specified documents. ECF No. 42. In accordance with Local Rule 141, the Request to Seal Documents, proposed order, and the documents to be filed under seal were submitted to the court. Plaintiff has not opposed the request.
Local Rule 141(a) provides that “[d]ocuments may be sealed only by written order of the Court, upon the showing required by applicable law.” In this case, defendant requests leave to file documents under seal on the ground that the documents have been labeled as confidential under the protective order entered in this case. ECF No. 42. However, Local Rule 141 requires that “[t]he ‘Request to Seal Documents' shall set forth the statutory or other authority for sealing,” L.R. 141(b) (emphasis added), and in approving the parties' protective order, the court advised the parties that “designation of documents (including transcripts of testimony) as confidential pursuant to this order does not automatically entitle the parties to file such a document with the court under seal,” ECF No. 39 at 1. The parties were also specifically directed to the requirements of Local Rule 141(b). Id. at 1-2. Defendant has therefore failed to demonstrate that the request to seal should be granted and will be given an opportunity to supplement the request. Failure to supplement the request to seal will result in the request being denied.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that within seven days of the filing of this order, defendant may supplement her request to seal to provide the authority for sealing the requested documents.