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 SUA SPONTE STRIKING

13 v. PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITIONS TO

DEFENDANT’S MOTIONS IN

14 REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF

LIMINE NOS. 1 & 2

CALIFORNIA,

15 (ECF Nos. 92, 93) Defendant. 16 17 Presently before the Court are Plaintiff John Doe’s Oppositions to Defendant’s 18 Motions in Limine Nos. 1 and 2. ECF Nos. 92, 93. Throughout the exhibits attached to 19 the Oppositions, Plaintiff redacted, without authority, Plaintiff’s real name. See ECF 20 No. 48 (“No party may file any document under seal, expect [sic] pursuant to a court order 21 that authorizes filing of the document, or portion of the document, under seal.” (emphasis 22 added)). The Court recently made clear that, while Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed 23 Anonymously remains pending, the Parties are to follow proper sealing procedures for 24 redacting portions of filed documents. ECF No. 85 at 1–2 (outlining the procedures the 25 Parties are expected to utilize). Thus, the Court sua sponte STRIKES Plaintiff’s 26 Oppositions to Defendant’s Motions in Limine Nos. 1 and 2 (ECF Nos. 92, 93) pursuant to 27 its inherent authority to manage its docket. See Cahill v. Insider Inc., No. 24-2199, 28 2025 WL 838264, at *4 (9th Cir. Mar. 18, 2025). 1 The Court recognizes that it did not police the Parties’ persistent redaction of 2 Plaintiffs name throughout this litigation with the careful attention that it deserves. 3 || Nevertheless, it should be apparent that, after sua sponte ordering Plaintiff to file his 4 Motion to Proceed Anonymously on February 20, 2025, the Court is taking the public’s 5 || right of access to the judicial system seriously. The Parties are expected to do the same. 6 Plaintiff SHALL, while following proper sealing procedures, re-file its oppositions 7 ||to Defendant’s Motions in Limine Nos. 1 and 2 on or before April 9, 2025. Plaintiff is 8 cautioned that requests to seal must be narrowly tailored—a party may not seek to seal an 9 || entire document where redaction would suffice. See Apex.AI, Inc. v. Langmead, No. 5:23- 10 || CV-02230-BLF, 2023 WL 4157629, at *1 (N.D. Cal. June 23, 2023). 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 ||Dated: April 7, 2025 jae L. Lo memeaite- 3 on. Janis L. Sammartino United States District Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28