Ashker v. Newsom

N.D. California

Ashker v. Newsom

DecidedDecember 18, 2019

Docket4:09-cv-05796

StatusUnknown

This text of Ashker v. Newsom (Ashker v. Newsom) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ashker v. Newsom, (N.D. Cal. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 EUREKA DIVISION 11 TODD ASHKER, et al., Case No.: 4:09-cv-05796-CW (RMI) 12 Plaintiffs, CLASS ACTION 13 v. [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ ADMINISTRATIVE 14 GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL CALIFORNIA, et al., 15 Judge: Honorable Robert M. Illman Defendants. 16

17 18 The Court has received Plaintiffs’ Administrative Motion to File Under Seal, and the 19 Declaration of Carmen Bremer in support of the same. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5(a), 20 Plaintiffs have shown that the portions of the documents to be sealed are entitled to protection under 21 the law because they contain confidential information that Defendants claim could harm CDCR 22 institutional safety and security if disclosed. See Dugan v. Lloyds TSB Bank, PLC, No. 12-cv- 23 02549-WHA (NJV), 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51162, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 9, 2013) (finding that good 24 cause may exist to seal records “if disclosure of the information might harm a litigant’s competitive 25 standing”). Plaintiffs have met the “good cause” standard for sealing Exhibit A and portions of 26 Exhibit B to the Declaration of Carmen Bremer in Support of Plaintiffs’ Enforcement Motion 27 Regarding Unauthorized SHU-Eligible Offense of “Participation in a Rout with an STG Nexus” (the 28 “Bremer Decl. ISO Plaintiffs’ Enforcement Motion”), as well as portions of the Bremer Decl. ISO 1 | Plaintiffs’ Enforcement Motion, because Plaintiffs have shown that they contain confidential 2 | mformation that Defendants claim would harm institutional safety and security, and would further 3 || compromise ongoing investigations of alleged prison gang activity if disclosed. See Kamakana v. 4 || City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006). 5 Having considered Plaintiffs’ Administrative Motion to File Under Seal and the Declaration 6 | of Carmen Bremer in support of same, and good cause appearing therefor, Plaintiffs’ Motion is 7 | hereby GRANTED. 8 | ITIS SO ORDERED.

10 | Dated: December 18, 2019 Honorable Robert M. Illman 1 United States Magistrate Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 +PROPOSEBTORDERGRANTINGPLTFS’ 2 ~~ Case No. 4:09-cv-05796-CW (RN

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 EUREKA DIVISION 11 TODD ASHKER, et al., Case No.: 4:09-cv-05796-CW (RMI) 12 Plaintiffs, CLASS ACTION 13 v. [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ ADMINISTRATIVE 14 GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL CALIFORNIA, et al., 15 Judge: Honorable Robert M. Illman Defendants. 16

17 18 The Court has received Plaintiffs’ Administrative Motion to File Under Seal, and the 19 Declaration of Carmen Bremer in support of the same. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5(a), 20 Plaintiffs have shown that the portions of the documents to be sealed are entitled to protection under 21 the law because they contain confidential information that Defendants claim could harm CDCR 22 institutional safety and security if disclosed. See Dugan v. Lloyds TSB Bank, PLC, No. 12-cv- 23 02549-WHA (NJV), 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51162, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 9, 2013) (finding that good 24 cause may exist to seal records “if disclosure of the information might harm a litigant’s competitive 25 standing”). Plaintiffs have met the “good cause” standard for sealing Exhibit A and portions of 26 Exhibit B to the Declaration of Carmen Bremer in Support of Plaintiffs’ Enforcement Motion 27 Regarding Unauthorized SHU-Eligible Offense of “Participation in a Rout with an STG Nexus” (the 28 “Bremer Decl. ISO Plaintiffs’ Enforcement Motion”), as well as portions of the Bremer Decl. ISO 1 | Plaintiffs’ Enforcement Motion, because Plaintiffs have shown that they contain confidential 2 | mformation that Defendants claim would harm institutional safety and security, and would further 3 || compromise ongoing investigations of alleged prison gang activity if disclosed. See Kamakana v. 4 || City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006). 5 Having considered Plaintiffs’ Administrative Motion to File Under Seal and the Declaration 6 | of Carmen Bremer in support of same, and good cause appearing therefor, Plaintiffs’ Motion is 7 | hereby GRANTED. 8 | ITIS SO ORDERED.

10 | Dated: December 18, 2019 Honorable Robert M. Illman 1 United States Magistrate Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 +PROPOSEBTORDERGRANTINGPLTFS’ 2 ~~ Case No. 4:09-cv-05796-CW (RN

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Ashker v. Newsom, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ashker-v-newsom-cand-2019.