(HC) Abramian v. Taylor

E.D. California

(HC) Abramian v. Taylor

DecidedMay 7, 2025

Docket1:24-cv-01207

StatusUnknown

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

Bluebook

(HC) Abramian v. Taylor, (E.D. Cal. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

2 3 4 5 6 7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 ARNO ABRAMIAN, Case No. 1:24-cv-01207-SAB-HC

12 Petitioner, ORDER SEALING DOCUMENTS AS SET FORTH IN GOVERNMENT’S NOTICE 13 v. (ECF No. 15) 14 TAYLOR, et al., ORDER DIRECTING RESPONDENT TO 15 Respondents. COMPLY WITH LOCAL RULE 141(e)(2)(i) WITHIN TWO DAYS FROM THE DATE 16 OF SERVICE OF ORDER

17 18 Pursuant to Local Rule 141(b) and based on the representations contained in the 19 Respondent’s Request to Seal, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Respondent’s Exhibit 1 to its 20 Notice of Filing Removal Order, pertaining to Arno Abramian, and Respondent’s Request to 21 Seal shall be SEALED until further order of this Court. 22 It is FURTHER ORDERED that electronic access to the sealed documents shall be 23 limited to Respondent and counsel for Petitioner. 24 The Court has considered the factors set forth in Oregonian Publishing Co. v. U.S. 25 District Court for the District of Oregon, 920 F.2d 1462 (9th Cir. 1990). The Court finds that, for 26 the reasons stated in Respondent’s Request, sealing Respondent’s Request and Exhibit 1 serves a 27 compelling interest. The Court further finds that, in the absence of closure, the compelling interests identified by Respondent would be harmed. In light of the public filing of its Notice to —eee mR IIE RII I IID IERIE OEE EEE IDNR IIE

1 | Seal, the Court further finds that there are no additional alternatives to sealing Respondent’s 2 | Request and Exhibit 1 that would adequately protect the compelling interests identified by the 3 | Government. 4 Respondent is DIRECTED to comply with Local Rule 141(e)(2)(i)! within two days from 5 | the date of service of this order. 6 | IT IS SO ORDERED. FA. Se g | Dated: _ May 7, 2025 STANLEY A. BOONE 9 United States Magistrate Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 |1 “Tf the requesting party is authorized to file electronically, then counsel for the requesting party shall either e-mail to the Clerk, at the e-mail address for sealed documents listed on the Court’s website, an electronic copy of the 27 documents covered by the sealing order, in .pdf format as an attachment, or submit to the Clerk by hand-delivery, U.S. mail, or same-day or overnight courier, a CD containing a copy of the documents in .pdf format.” L.R. 141 28 | (e)2yi).

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

2 3 4 5 6 7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 ARNO ABRAMIAN, Case No. 1:24-cv-01207-SAB-HC

12 Petitioner, ORDER SEALING DOCUMENTS AS SET FORTH IN GOVERNMENT’S NOTICE 13 v. (ECF No. 15) 14 TAYLOR, et al., ORDER DIRECTING RESPONDENT TO 15 Respondents. COMPLY WITH LOCAL RULE 141(e)(2)(i) WITHIN TWO DAYS FROM THE DATE 16 OF SERVICE OF ORDER

17 18 Pursuant to Local Rule 141(b) and based on the representations contained in the 19 Respondent’s Request to Seal, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Respondent’s Exhibit 1 to its 20 Notice of Filing Removal Order, pertaining to Arno Abramian, and Respondent’s Request to 21 Seal shall be SEALED until further order of this Court. 22 It is FURTHER ORDERED that electronic access to the sealed documents shall be 23 limited to Respondent and counsel for Petitioner. 24 The Court has considered the factors set forth in Oregonian Publishing Co. v. U.S. 25 District Court for the District of Oregon, 920 F.2d 1462 (9th Cir. 1990). The Court finds that, for 26 the reasons stated in Respondent’s Request, sealing Respondent’s Request and Exhibit 1 serves a 27 compelling interest. The Court further finds that, in the absence of closure, the compelling interests identified by Respondent would be harmed. In light of the public filing of its Notice to —eee mR IIE RII I IID IERIE OEE EEE IDNR IIE

1 | Seal, the Court further finds that there are no additional alternatives to sealing Respondent’s 2 | Request and Exhibit 1 that would adequately protect the compelling interests identified by the 3 | Government. 4 Respondent is DIRECTED to comply with Local Rule 141(e)(2)(i)! within two days from 5 | the date of service of this order. 6 | IT IS SO ORDERED. FA. Se g | Dated: _ May 7, 2025 STANLEY A. BOONE 9 United States Magistrate Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 |1 “Tf the requesting party is authorized to file electronically, then counsel for the requesting party shall either e-mail to the Clerk, at the e-mail address for sealed documents listed on the Court’s website, an electronic copy of the 27 documents covered by the sealing order, in .pdf format as an attachment, or submit to the Clerk by hand-delivery, U.S. mail, or same-day or overnight courier, a CD containing a copy of the documents in .pdf format.” L.R. 141 28 | (e)2yi).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

(HC) Abramian v. Taylor, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hc-abramian-v-taylor-caed-2025.