2013-00151805-CU-PO

Under Seal vs. Under Seal

Nature of Proceeding: Motion for Order Sealing Record

Filed By: Strain, Marla C.

Plaintiff’s unopposed motion to “file complaint as a ‘Jane Doe’ complaint” is granted.

The Court finds that it is permissible given the nature of this action, which involves
allegations regarding sexual assaults committed by a City of Sacramento employee,
that Plaintiff be allowed to file a “Jane Doe” complaint. (Doe v. Lincoln Unified School
th
Dist. (2010) 187 Cal.App.4 1286, 1292-1293.) The “Jane Doe” complaint shall
replace the original complaint filed on September 19, 2013, and will relate back to the
date that pleading was filed.

In addition, the Court finds that Plaintiff has shown good cause to allow sealing of the
original complaint filed on September 19, 2013, the motion to file complaint under seal
filed on October 9, 2013, and the Court’s October 23, 2013 minute order on that
motion. Indeed, the Court finds that the factors set forth in California Rules of Court,
Rules 2.550 and 2.551 have been satisfied. Indeed, the documents sought to be
sealed contain Plaintiff’s name which she seeks to have redacted. Nothing else is
requested to be sealed. The Court finds that Plaintiff’s interest in maintaining the
confidentiality of her name overcomes the right of public access to the information
th
(See e.g., Starbucks Corp. v. Superior Court (2008) 168 Cal.App.4 1436, 1452
[“judicial use of ‘Doe plaintiffs’ to protect legitimate privacy rights has gained wide
currency, particularly given the rapidity and ubiquity of disclosures over the World
Wide Web”]), that interest supports sealing her name, there is a substantial probability that the interest in maintaining the confidentiality of her name will be prejudiced absent
sealing, the proposed sealing is narrowly tailored, and there are no less restrictive
means to achieve the overriding interest. (CRC, Rule 2.550(d).)

As a result, the motion to seal is granted. Plaintiff, however, must file the redacted
versions of the documents requested to be sealed . Here, they have only been
attached to counsel’s declaration in support of the instant motion.

Pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1312, Plaintiff’s counsel is to submit a proposed order that
complies with CRC Rules 2.550(e) and 2.551(e). The proposed order submitted fails
to address the relevant Rules

The clerk is directed to change the security clearance for the complaint filed on
September 19, 2013, the motion to seal filed on October 9, 2013, and the Court’s
October 23, 2013, minute order on the motion to seal so that they can not be
accessed by the public.