United States v. Hughes ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Case No. 18-cv-05931-JCS 8 Plaintiff, ORDER SEALING EXHIBITS AND 9 v. ATTACHING STANDING ORDER 10 TIMBERLY E. HUGHES, Re: Dkt. No. 68 Defendants. 11 12 I. EX PARTE REQUEST TO SEAL 13 Defendant Timberly Hughes, pro se, filed a number of motions on September 4, 2020. In 14 an order issued the same day denying those motions, the Court noted that Hughes waived the 15 protection of Rule 5.2 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by filing personal information 16 included in exhibits in the public record. See dkt. 75 at 1 n.2. After that order was issued, Hughes 17 sent an ex parte request via email to the Courtroom Deputy requesting that the exhibits to docket 18 entry 68 be placed under seal. 19 Sealing documents in a federal court docket is the exception rather than the rule, and 20 generally must be supported by “compelling reasons.” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 21 809 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2016).1 Requests to file under seal must be made by administrative 22 motion filed in the public record at the time the document at issue is filed, following the procedure 23 set by Civil Local Rule 79-5. Such requests must be narrowly tailored, and even where the Court 24 grants a motion to seal, parties often must also file versions of the documents at issue in the public 25 record with only the sensitive portions of them redacted. 26 27 1 A lower standard of “good cause” can suffice for sealing documents filed in connection with a ] Tn an abundance of caution, and taking into account Hughes’s pro se status, the Court 2 || GRANTS Hughes’s ex parte request in this instance, and SEALS docket entries 68-3 through 3 68-6, each of which contains Hughes’s personal information that would, absent waiver, be 4 || protected by Rule 5.2. Going forward, Hughes must follow the appropriate procedures to request 5 sealing; future ex parte requests by email will be disregarded. To avoid the need for sealing, both 6 || parties are encouraged to redact sensitive information that is not relevant to the purposes for which 7 || document is filed. 8 || IL. CIVIL STANDING ORDERS 9 The Court’s previous order (dkt. 75) stated that this Court’s Civil Standing Orders would 10 be attached for reference. Due to an administrative error, however, the standing orders were not 11 attached to that order. The standing orders are attached here. The Court apologizes for any 12 || confusion. ve 14 Hughes is encouraged to contact the Federal Pro Bono Project’s Pro Se Help Desk for 3 15 assistance as she continues to defend this case. Lawyers at the Help Desk can provide basic 16 || assistance to parties representing themselves but cannot provide legal representation. In-person 17 || appointments are not currently available due to the COVID-19 public health emergency, but 18 || Hughes may contact the Help Desk at 415-782-8982 or FedPro@sfbar.org to schedule a 19 || telephonic appointment 20 IT ISSO ORDERED. 21 Dated: September 8, 2020 22 Z- CZ J PH C. SPERO 23 ief Magistrate Judge 24 25 26 27 28