John Doe v. Regents of The University of California
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Janis L. Sammartino (author)
Analysis
Defendant filed Motions in Limine containing Plaintiff's full name despite a pending motion to proceed anonymously, and filed them late. The Court sua sponte struck the motions for failing to follow sealing procedures and modified the briefing schedule to allow for proper re-filing.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Defendant's Motions in Limine Nos. 2 and 3 are struck.“it sua sponte STRIKES Defendant’s Motions in Limine Nos. 2 and 3 (ECF Nos. 82, 83) under its inherent authority to manage its docket.” | agree with court The court correctly identified that the defendant failed to comply with local rules and protective order requirements regarding the sealing of documents containing sensitive personal information (Plaintiff's name). Striking the filings is a standard case management tool to enforce procedural rules and protect privacy interests, especially when a motion for anonymity is pending. The citation to *Cahill* supports the court's inherent authority to manage the docket in the context of anonymity. |
The briefing schedule is modified to require re-filing of the motions and new deadlines for oppositions.“the Court also sua sponte modifies the briefing schedule as follows. Defendant SHALL RE-FILE its Motions in Limine Nos. 2 and 3 on or before March 28, 2025. Both Parties SHALL FILE their oppositions to the Motions in Limine on or before April 4, 2025.” | agree with court Given the late filing (afternoon before the opposition deadline) and the need to re-file with proper redactions, extending the schedule is a reasonable and equitable exercise of the court's case management powers to ensure the parties have a fair opportunity to brief the motions. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly applies local rules and the protective order to strike non-compliant filings that inadvertently disclosed sensitive information. The court's reliance on its inherent authority and the specific local rules (Civil Local Rule 79.2, ECF Manual) is appropriate. The modification of the schedule is a logical consequence of the strike and the late filing. The citation to *Cahill* is recent and relevant to the Ninth Circuit's stance on anonymity and docket management.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOHN DOE, Case No.: 22-CV-1506 JLS (VET)
12 Plaintiff, ORDER (1) SUA SPONTE STRIKING 13 v. DEFENDANT’S MOTIONS IN LIMINE NOS. 2 & 3, AND (2) SUA 14 REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF SPONTE MODIFYING BRIEFING CALIFORNIA, 15 SCHEDULE Defendant. 16 (ECF Nos. 77, 82, 83) 17 Presently before the Court is Defendant Regents of the University of California’s 18 Motions in Limine Nos. 2 and 3. ECF No. 82, 83. Numerous exhibits to the Motions 19 contain Plaintiff’s full name despite Plaintiff’s intention to proceed anonymously in this 20 litigation. See ECF No. 76. Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed Anonymously currently remains 21 pending, and while the Court takes the time to resolve the Motion, it sua sponte STRIKES 22 Defendant’s Motions in Limine Nos. 2 and 3 (ECF Nos. 82, 83) under its inherent authority 23 to manage its docket. See Cahill v. Insider Inc., No. 24-2199, 2025 WL 838264, at *4 24 (9th Cir. Mar.18, 2025). If Defendant wishes to re-file its Motions in Limine, it SHALL 25 follow proper sealing procedures for doing so, including lodging an unredacted version of 26 the Motions, publicly filing a redacted version of the Motions, and publicly filing a motion 27 to seal. Such procedures are explained in more detail in Section 34 of the Protective Order, 28 see ECF No. 48 at 12, Section 2.j of the Electronic Case Filing Administrative Policies and 1 ||Procedures Manual for the United States District Court for the Southern District of 2 || California (“ECF Manual’), see Office of the Clerk, United States District Court for the 3 ||Southern District of California, Electronic Case Filing Administrative Policies and 4 || Procedures Manual, § 2. (July 22, 2024), and Civil Local Rule 79.2. 5 Because Defendant did not file its Motions in Limine, until the afternoon before the 6 || opposition deadline, the Court also sua sponte modifies the briefing schedule as follows. 7 ||Defendant SHALL RE-FILE its Motions in Limine Nos. 2 and 3 on or before March 28, 8 ||2025. Both Parties SHALL FILE their oppositions to the Motions in Limine on or before 9 || April 4, 2025. Defendant is cautioned that requests to seal must be narrowly tailored—a 10 || party may not seek to seal an entire document where redaction would suffice. See Apex.Al, 11 v. Langmead, No. 5:23-CV-02230-BLF, 2023 WL 4157629, at *1 (N.D. Cal. June 23, 12 2023). 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 ||Dated: March 27, 2025 psi L. Lo meeaitie- 15 on. Janis L. Sammartino United States District Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28