Rivera

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARTHA RIVERA, et al., Case No. 1:99-cv-06443-JLT-HBK 12 Plaintiffs, ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANT TO FILE

LIMITED SURREPLY

13 v.

APRIL 19, 2024 DEADLINE

14 NIBCO INC, et al., ARGUMENT: MAY 16, 2024 at 10:00 A.M. 15 Defendants. 16 17 Pending before the Court is the Administrative Motion to Unseal Certain Filing filed on 18 January 29, 2024 by Christopher Ho, former counsel for the plaintiffs. (Doc. No. 794, “Motion”). 19 Defendant Nibco filed a Response to the Motion, in which it does not oppose to the unsealing of 20 the requested documents, but conditions to do so on extensive redactions, each of which it 21 contends are supported by “good cause.” (See Doc. No. 802). In Reply, Ho asserts that 22 Defendant’s proposed redactions must be justified under the more demanding “compelling 23 reasons” standard to rebut the presumption of public access to documents related to a dispositive 24 motion. (See Doc. No. 807) (citing Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1175 25 …