Groveman v. UC Davis

Opinion

1 DAVID M. ROSENBERG-WOHL (S.B. MATTHEW R. COWAN (S.B. #281114) #132924) mcowan@omm.com 2 david@hrw-law.com O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP 3 Hershenson Rosenberg-Wohl, 400 South Hope Street, 19th Floor A Professional Corporation Los Angeles, California 90071-2899 4 3080 Washington St. Telephone: (213) 430-6000 San Francisco, CA 94115 Facsimile: (213) 430-6407 5 Telephone: (415) 317-7756 MEAGHAN VERGOW* 6 Attorney for Plaintiff mvergow@omm.com 1625 Eye Street, NW 8 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 383-5300 9 Facsimile: (202) 383-5414

10 ANTON METLITSKY* 11 ametlitsky@omm.com JENNIFER SOKOLER* 12 jsokoler@omm.com O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP 13 1301 Avenue of the Americas, Suite 1700 New York, NY 10019 14 Telephone: (212) 326-2000 15 Facsimile: (212) 326-2061

16 Attorneys for Defendants *Admitted pro hac vice 17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 18 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 19 JONATHAN GROVEMAN, Case No. 2:24-cv-01421-DJC-AC 20 Plaintiff, DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF 21 REQUEST TO REDACT LIMITED PORTIONS OF EXHIBIT IN SUPPORT 22 v. OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS; ORDER CALIFORNIA, MICHAEL V. DRAKE, Assigned to Hon. Daniel J. Calabretta 24 GARY S. MAY, MARY CROUGHAN, Courtroom 10 25 R SHEN INE NT ET RA L G , PA AR BR LIS OO RN E T GU UL EL R, IC NL , A AR NE D 26 D OES 1-10, Defendants. 27

28 1 Pursuant to Local Rule 140 and this Court’s Standing Order in Civil Cases, 2 Defendants The Regents of the University of California, Michael V. Drake, Gary S. May, 3 Mary Croughan, Renetta Garrison Tull, Clare Shinnerl, and Pablo Reguerin 4 (“Defendants”) respectfully request leave to redact personally identifiable information in a 5 single exhibit in support of Defendants’ anticipated motion to dismiss the first amended 6 complaint. Plaintiff consents to this request and has approved of the proposed 7 redactions. 8 Per this Court’s most recent order regarding the briefing schedule, the deadline 9 for Defendants to respond to the amended complaint is October 17, 2024. (ECF No. 10 29.) Defendants anticipate filing a motion to dismiss, accompanied by several 11 supporting exhibits comprising documents incorporated into the complaint. One 12 supporting exhibit consists of an email Plaintiff sent to officials at the University of 13 California, Davis with an attachment of a report that Plaintiff filed with the U.S. 14 Department of Justice. The report contains Plaintiff’s home address and phone number. 15 Defendants seek permission to redact that sensitive personal information in its filing 16 before this Court. A copy of the exhibit with the proposed redactions is attached hereto 17 as Exhibit A. 18 Pursuant to Local Rule 140 and this Court’s Standing Order in Civil Cases, prior 19 approval of the Court is required in order to redact this information. Redaction is 20 warranted here “[i]n light of legitimate privacy concerns.” Brown v. Elk Grove Unified 21 Sch. Dist., No. 2:17-CV-00396-KJM-DB, 2019 WL 13095063, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 19, 22 2019) (granting request to redact telephone numbers and home addresses); see also, 23 e.g., Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1184 (9th Cir. 2006) (affirming 24 order permitting redaction of home addresses); Kemper Indep. Ins. Co. v. Wells, No. 25 117CV01612AWISAB, 2018 WL 558791, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 25, 2018) (authorizing 26 redaction of defendants' home addresses); Pryor v. City of Clearlake, No. C 11-0954 27 CW, 2012 WL 3276992, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 9, 2012) (authorizing redaction of 28 1 information including addresses and telephone numbers). “[T]he public’s interest in 2 access to documents,” Kemper, 2018 WL 558791, at *1, will be safeguarded because 3 the vast majority of the document will remain publicly accessible, and the minimal 4 information proposed to be redacted has no bearing on the issues in the case or 5 arguments raised in the motion to dismiss. For these reasons, Defendants respectfully 6 request that this Court authorize the limited redactions sought by Defendants and 7 consented to by Plaintiff. 8 Dated: October 15, 2024. By: /s/ Matthew R. Cowan 9 Matthew R. Cowan 10 Attorney for Defendants 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 This Court, having considered the Request to Redact Limited Portions of Exhibit 3 in Support of Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendants The Regents of the 4 University of California, Michael V. Drake, Gary S. May, Mary Croughan, Renetta 5 Garrison Tull, Clare Shinnerl, and Pablo Reguerin (“Defendants”), and compelling 6 reason appearing therefor, hereby ORDERS as follows: 7 Defendants’ Request to Redact Limited Portions of Exhibit in Support of 8 Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. Defendants may file the exhibit with 9 Plaintiff’s home address and phone number redacted. 10 12

13 Dated: October 16, 2024 /s/ Daniel J. Calabretta THE HONORABLE DANIEL J. CALABRETTA 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 15

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28