Saideh Habibi v. Orange County, SSA

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SAIDEH HABIBI, Case No. 2:25-cv-1507-DC-JDP (PS) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 ORANGE COUNTY, SSA, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Pending before the court is plaintiff’s notice of voluntarily dismissal and request to seal 18 the complaint and related filings. ECF Nos. 18 & 19. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41 19 provides that, subject to exceptions not exceptions not applicable here, a plaintiff may voluntarily 20 dismiss an action without a court order by filing:

21 (i) a notice of dismissal before the opposing party serves either an answer or a motion for summary judgment; or 22 (ii) a stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties who have appeared. 23 24 Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A). 25 Because defendant Orange County SSA has not appeared in this action, much less filed an 26 answer or motion for summary judgment, plaintiff can voluntarily dismiss this case. Her request 27 is granted. 28 However, plaintiff’s request to seal must be denied. Plaintiff’s motion neither complies 1 with Local Rule 141, which governs the sealing of documents, nor demonstrates that sealing the 2 complaint is appropriate. 3 Courts have recognized “a general right to inspect and copy public records and 4 documents, including judicial records and documents.” Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 5 U.S. 589, 597 (1978). “Unless a particular court record is one ‘traditionally kept secret,’ a ‘strong 6 presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.” Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of Honolulu, 7 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 8 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003). A party seeking to file a document under seal “bears the burden of 9 overcoming this strong presumption by” articulating “compelling reasons supported by specific 10 factual findings that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring 11 disclosure . . . .” Id. (citations omitted). 12 Under the court’s local rules, “[d]ocuments may be sealed only by written order of the 13 Court, upon a showing required by applicable law.” E.D. Cal. L.R. 141(a). A party seeking to 14 file documents under seal must submit a Request to Seal Documents, which “shall set forth the 15 statutory or other authority for sealing, the requested duration, the identity, by name or category, 16 of persons to be permitted access to the documents, and all other relevant information.” E.D. Cal. 17 L.R. 141(b). 18 Plaintiff contends that the case should be sealed because prospective employers will be 19 able to review filings in this case and will illegally discriminate against her because she filed this 20 lawsuit. ECF No. 18. Plaintiff’s filing does not provide adequate justification for her request to 21 seal her filings. Furthermore, she has neither complied with the court’s local rules for obtaining a 22 sealing order nor set forth any statutory or case authority as a basis for filing her case under seal. 23 Her request to seal is denied.1 24 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that: 25 1. Plaintiff’s notice of voluntarily dismiss, ECF No. 19, is GRANTED. 26 2. Plaintiff’s request to seal, ECF No. 18, is DENIED. 27 1 Plaintiff is permitted to file a properly supported request to seal her complaint and 28 related filings after the case is closed. 1 3. This action is DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 2 | Procedure 41(a)(1). 3 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this action. 4 5 IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: _ April 20, 2026 q———_ 7 JEREMY D. PETERSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28