Ramachandran v. City of Los Altos

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 SATISH RAMACHANDRAN, Case No. 23-cv-02928-SVK

8 Plaintiff, ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S PENDING 9 v. ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS

10 CITY OF LOS ALTOS, et al., Re: Dkt. Nos. 110, 111, 112, 113 11 Defendants.

12 This order addresses the following motions presently before the Court: (1) Plaintiff's 13 administrative motion requesting that the Court address “violations of the Court’s order and 14 extrinsic frauds on court” (Dkt. 110); (2) Plaintiff's administrative motion requesting the Court to 15 maintain the seal on its August 6, 2024 order to show cause (Dkt. 111); and (3) and (4) Plaintiff’s 16 administrative motions “requesting the Court to investigate” (Dkts. 112, 113). These motions are 17 suitable for determination without further briefing or a hearing. Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). 18 Having reviewed these motions, the Court ORDERS as follows: 1. Plaintiff filed certain materials under seal on July 30, 2024 pursuant to the Court’s 19 July 9, 2024 Further Order on Defendant City of Los Altos’ Motion for Sanctions. 20 Dkt. 105-107 (the “July 30 submission”); see also Dkt. 104 (July 9 order). The 21 Court authorized Plaintiff to file the July 30 submission under seal and intended 22 that it be made available for viewing, which is understood to include downloading, 23 only to counsel for Defendant City of Los Altos on an attorneys-eyes-only basis. 24 See Dkt. 104 at 16-17. However, court staff subsequently made the sealed July 30 25 submission available not only to counsel for Defendant City of Los Altos but also 26 to counsel for Defendant Pamela Jacobs. This was due to an error by court staff 27 and did not result from the misconduct of any defense counsel. Nevertheless, the 1 Court ORDERS counsel for Defendant Jacobs to retrieve and delete all electronic 2 copies and to retrieve and destroy all hard copies of the July 30 submission and to 3 refrain from the use of that material for any purpose. Counsel for Defendant Jacobs 4 is to submit a declaration of compliance with this Order no later than September 3, 5 2024. 6 2. The following portion of the August 6, 2024 Order to Show Cause (Dkt. 108) shall remain under seal: from the sentence starting at the end of page 2:line 1 through 7 the end of that sentence and accompanying citation at page 2:line 3; and from the 8 sentence that begins at the end of page 2:line 5 through page 2:line 11. Plaintiff’s 9 submission at Dkt. 111 fails to make the necessary showing of compelling reasons 10 to seal any other portion of the August 6 Order to Show Cause. See Kamakana v. 11 City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006); Ctr. for Auto Safety 12 v. Chrysler Grp., 809 F.3d 1092, 1099 (9th Cir. 2016). The Court will file a 13 redacted copy of Dkt. 108 on the public docket that conforms to these rulings. 14 3. Except as expressly granted in this order, all of Plaintiff’s requests for relief in 15 Dkts. 110, 111, 112, and 113 are DENIED. 16 4. Dkts. 110, 111, 112, and 113 were filed under seal without prior Court 17 authorization and without an accompanying Administrative Motion to File Under 18 Seal as required under Civil Local Rule 79-5. By September 3, 2024, Plaintiff 19 must file for the Court’s consideration an Administrative Motion to Seal that 20 complies with Civil Local Rule 79-5 with regard to any portion of Dkts. 110, 111, 21 112, and 113 that he seeks to have sealed. The Court calls to Plaintiff’s attention 22 the following guidance from Civil Local Rule 79-5(a): “A party must explore all 23 reasonable alternatives to filing documents under seal, minimize the number of 24 documents filed under seal, and avoid wherever possible sealing entire documents 25 (as opposed to merely redacting the truly sensitive information in a document).” 26 The Court also alerts Plaintiff that it will order the unsealing of any future filings 27 that are made under seal without complying with Civil Local Rule 79-5. 1 All Parties are advised that contact with the Courtroom Deputy is to be limited to purely 2 administrative matters, such as scheduling and general case management. Opposing counsel 3 must be copied on all such communications. The Parties are not to communicate with the 4 || Courtroom Deputy regarding substantive or procedural issues. 5 SO ORDERED. 6 || Dated: August 22, 2024 7 8 Season val SUSAN VAN KEULEN 9 United States Magistrate Judge 10 11 12

© 15 16

= 17

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