Mort v. Brennan ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 THEODORE W. MORT, an individual, Case No. 1:19-cv-00652-JLT-SKO 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND GRANTING 13 v. REQUEST TO SEAL 14 LOUIS DEJOY, POSTMASTER GENERAL, UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, (Doc. 128; Doc. 130) 15 16 Defendant. 17 Before the Court are United States Postal Inspection Service’s motion for a protective 18 order (Doc. 128) and request to seal (Doc. 130) a document from Mort’s trial exhibit list referred 19 to as “02/26/16 Email Keith Silva to Rho, Nunez, Rickher, McKeown subject FW: Baumgart 20 Report, with attachments” (the “Silva Email”). Mort filed the Silva Email as an attachment to his 21 response to USPIS’s Motion in Limine No. 6 (Doc. 120-1 at 27-49). USPIS also filed a motion in 22 limine asking the Court to exclude the Silva Email based on Mort’s failure to timely produce the 23 document during discovery. (Doc. 105.) Because the Court granted USPIS’s motion in limine to 24 exclude the Silva Email and Mort is prohibited from introducing the document at trial, USPIS’s 25 motion for protective order (Doc. 128) is now moot and therefore, DENIED. 26 As for the request to seal, without reaching the question of whether it is protected by 27 attorney-client privilege, the Court finds the Silva Email contains sensitive information about a 28 non-party employee’s misconduct at USPIS. (See Doc. 128-2 at 2.) Such confidential personnel 1 | information typically provides a valid basis to seal the document. See Cowan v. GE Cap. Retail 2 | Bank, 2015 WL 1324848, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 24, 2015) (sealing documents containing “highly 3 || sensitive personnel documents” about non-party employees’ evaluations); Huerta v. Cnty. of 4 | Tulare, 2019 WL 1367803, at *8 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 26, 2019) (granting request to seal “confidential 5 || personnel records”). The request to seal will be granted. Accordingly, and for the reasons state 6 | above, 7 1. USPIS’s motion for protective order (Doc. 128) is DENIED as moot. 8 2. USPIS’s request to seal (Doc. 130) is GRANTED. 9 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to seal the entirety of Doc. 120. 10 4. Mort is directed to re-file the public portions of the motion and attachments 11 currently contained within Doc. 120. Thereafter, he shall submit for sealed 12 docketing only the portion subject to seal as described herein (Doc. 120-1 at 27- 13 49) in accordance with Local Rule 141. 14 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 Dated: _ August 16, 2022 Charis [Tourn TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28