E.E. v. Norris School District

Opinion

wow 4 OU VV VR MVVUOCTI ot POO tee eV

1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 | E.E., a minor, by and through his guardian CASE NO. 1:20-CV-1291 AWI JLT ad litem, LAURA HUTCHINSON- 9 | ESCOBEDO; CHRISTOPHER ORDER SEALING DOCUMENT 17-1 ESCOBEDO; and LAURA 10 | HUTCHINSON-ESCOBEDO 11 Plaintiffs 12 v. 13 | NORRIS SCHOOL DISTRICT, 14 Defendant 15 16 17 Defendant Norris School District filed the January 22, 2020 IEP of Plaintiff E.E. as an 18 | attachment to legal briefing on September 30, 2020. In the docket, it is Document 17-1. The IEP 19 | was unredacted and included E.E.’s full name. E.E. is a minor. In general, there is a “very strong 20 | privacy interest” in protecting the personal information of a minor. Jenkins v. Wash. Metro. Area 21 | Transit Auth., 960 F. Supp. 2d 2, 16 (D.D.C. 2013). For this reason, Document 17-1 is ordered 22 | SEALED so that it is only accessible by the court and the parties to this case. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. | Dated: _ October 2, 2020 —. 7 Sz 7 Cb Lec — SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE 26 27 28