(PS) The Ruth Camel, Estate v. Nash Weber ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RUTH CAMEL ESTATE, No. 2:22–cv–645–KJM–KJN PS 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING REQUEST TO SEAL 13 v. (ECF No. 6.) 14 SHIRLEY NASH WEBER, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, who is proceeding without counsel in this action, filed a complaint and requested 18 leave to proceed without paying the filing fee.1 (ECF No. 2.) See 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (authorizing 19 the commencement of an action “without prepayment of fees or security” by a person who is 20 unable to pay such fees). The undersigned granted plaintiff’s request, screened the complaint 21 under Section 1915, found it lacking, and granted leave for plaintiff to file a first amended 22 complaint. (ECF No. 4.) On April 22, plaintiff submitted her first amended complaint (“1AC”) 23 to the Clerk of Court, but filed alongside it a request to seal the 1AC. (ECF No. 6.) Thus, the 24 Clerk held the 1AC until the undersigned could review plaintiff’s request to seal. 25 For the reasons that follow, plaintiff’s request is denied. 26 /// 27 1 Actions where a party proceeds without counsel are referred to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 E.D. Cal. L.R. 302(c)(21). See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. 1 DISCUSSION 2 Requests to seal documents in this district are governed by E.D. Cal. R. (“Local Rule”) 3 | 141. In brief, Local Rule 141 provides that documents may only be sealed by a written order of 4 | the court after a specific request to seal has been made. Local Rule 141(a). However, a mere 5 || request to seal is not enough. Local Rule 141(b) requires that “[t]he ‘Request to Seal Documents’ 6 || shall set forth the statutory or other authority for sealing... .” E.D. Local Rule 141(b). 7 The court starts “‘with a strong presumption in favor of access to court records,’” Center 8 | for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Group, LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting Foltz v. 9 || State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). “The presumption of 10 || access is ‘based on the need for federal courts, although independent — indeed, particularly 11 || because they are independent — to have a measure of accountability and for the public to have 12 || confidence in the administration of justice.’” Id. (quoting United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 13 | 1044, 1048 (2d Cir.1995)). A request to seal material must normally meet the high threshold of 14 | showing that “compelling reasons” support secrecy. Id. (citing Kamakana v. City and County of 15 | Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006)). 16 Plaintiff has not identified legal authority that supports sealing of the first amended 17 || complaint. Instead, it appears plaintiff merely wishes to keep the filing from “the public and 18 || press.” (ECF No. 6.) This is not a compelling reason to seal the amended complaint. Center for 19 | Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1096. Given this, Local Rule 140(e)(1) requires the Clerk to return the 20 | documents to plaintiff. Plaintiff may refile the first amended complaint as is, or may make 21 || alterations to it and file a new version (which shall be labeled “first amended complaint”). 22 || Plaintiff has until May 15, 2022, to file the amended complaint, should she choose to do so. 23 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 24 1. Plaintiff's request to seal (ECF No. 6) is DENIED; and 25 2. The Clerk shall RETURN to plaintiff the first amended complaint. 26 || Dated: April 25, 2022 came.645 Ae ¥ L Notrrmann— 28 KENDALL J. NE ) UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE