Imber v. Lackey

District Court, E.D. California·Decided June 17, 2025·No. 1:22-cv-00004·Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BRANDON IMBER, individually and on Case No. 1:22-cv-00004-HBK behalf of all other similarly situated, 12 ORDER GRANTING NOTICE OF REQUEST Plaintiff, TO SEAL 13 v. (Doc. No. 157) 14 BRUCE LACKEY, PAM LACKEY, 15 LACKEY FAMILY TRUST, COLE SCHARTON, THE ADMINISTRATIVE 16 COMMITTEE OF THE PEOPLE BUSINESS EMPLOYEE STOCK 17 OWNERSHIP PLAN, MIGUEL PAREDES, RICH ROUSH, DEL 18 THACKER, RICHARD DEYOUNG, AND RITCHIE TRUCKING SERVICE 19 HOLDINGS, INC., 20 Defendants. 21 On May 21, 2025, Plaintiff filed a request to seal an 18-page supplemental confidential 22 agreement as part of Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement. 23 (Doc. No. 157). Defendants did not submit an opposition under Local Rule 141(c). 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 the Plaintiff’s request, sealing the supplemental confidential agreement 27 serves a compelling interest. See, e.g., Hefler v. Wells Fargo & Co., 2018 WL 4207245 (N.D. 28 1 | Cal. Sept. 4, 2018) (collecting cases) (“There are compelling reasons to keep this information 2 | confidential in order to prevent third parties from utilizing it for the improper purpose of 3 | obstructing the settlement and obtaining higher payouts.”). The Court further finds that, in the 4 | absence of closure, the compelling interests identified by Plaintiff would be harmed. In light of 5 | the public filing of its Notice to Seal, the Court further finds that there are no additional 6 | alternatives to sealing the supplemental confidential agreement that would adequately protect the 7 | compelling interests identified by the Plaintiff. 8 Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 9 1. Plaintiff's unopposed request to seal documents (Doc. No. 157) is GRANTED. 10 2. Within five (5) days of this Order, Plaintiff shall provide an electronic copy of the 11 | document to be sealed to the Clerk of Court by email to: ApprovedSealed @caed.uscourts.gov, at 12 | which time the Clerk of Court will file the documents under seal. See Local Rule 141(e)(2)q). 13 Dated: __June 16,2025 Wiha. □□ fares Zackte 15 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA 6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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

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

Imber v. Lackey, (E.D. Cal. 2025).

Imber v. Lackey (Imber v. Lackey) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.