Clark v. Transamerica Life Insurance Company ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SHERYL CLARK, Individually, as No. 2:20-cv-0539 JAM DB Successor-in-Interest to Delaine Stowell, 12 on Behalf of the Estate of Delaine Stowell, and on Behalf of the Class, 13 ORDER 14 Plaintiff, 15 v. 16 TRANSAMERICA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, an Iowa Corporation, 17 18 Defendant. 19 20 On April 30, 2020, the parties submitted a proposed stipulated protective order regarding 21 the use of confidential information for the court’s consideration. (ECF No. 13.) The parties’ 22 proposed stipulated protective order recognizes the applicability of Local Rule 140 regarding 23 redaction but states that 24 Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable in its entirety will not be filed under seal if the 25 confidential portions can be redacted. If documents can be redacted, then a redacted version for public viewing, omitting only the 26 confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable portions of the document, shall be filed. Any application that seeks to file 27 documents under seal in their entirety should include an explanation of why redaction is not feasible. 28 1 (Id. at 3.) In this regard, the parties’ proposed stipulated protective order appears to contemplate 2 considerable redaction of filed documents. 3 However, the parties are advised that all documents filed with the court are presumptively 4 public. See San Jose Mercury News, Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Court, 187 F.3d 1096, 1103 (9th Cir. 5 1999) (“It is well-established that the fruits of pretrial discovery are, in the absence of a court 6 order to the contrary, presumptively public.”). In civil actions Local Rule 140 provides for the 7 redaction of only minors’ names, financial account numbers, Social Security numbers, dates of 8 birth, and when federal law requires redaction. Local Rule 140(a). “No other redactions are 9 permitted unless the Court has authorized the redaction.” Local Rule 140(b). 10 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the parties’ April 30, 2020 request for entry of the 11 proposed stipulated protective order (ECF No. 13) is denied without prejudice to renewal. 12 DATED: May 1, 2020 /s/ DEBORAH BARNES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28