Ramachandran v. City of Los Altos
- Susan Van Keulen
- 5:23-cv-02928
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Ramachandran v. City of Los Altos, Judge Van Keulen ordered limited sealing and deletion of materials while denying the remaining requests.
Satish Ramachandran, counsel for Pamela Jacobs, counsel for the City of Los Altos, and the handling and public filing of specified court materials.
What happened
In Ramachandran v. City of Los Altos, Satish Ramachandran filed four administrative motions concerning alleged violations and fraud, sealing an August 6 order, and requests for court investigation. The court decided the motions without further briefing or a hearing.
The court ordered counsel for Pamela Jacobs to retrieve and delete electronic copies, destroy hard copies, and not use materials that court staff had mistakenly made available to that counsel. The court also kept specified portions of the August 6 order under seal and directed that a redacted version be filed publicly. All other requested relief in the four motions was denied.
Judge Susan Van Keulen also ordered Ramachandran to file a proper motion to seal by September 3, 2024, for any portions of the four filings he wanted sealed. The court warned that future filings submitted under seal without following the applicable local rule would be unsealed.
The detailed version
- Ramachandran v. City of Los Altos · No. 5:23-cv-02928
- Susan Van Keulen
- Aug. 22, 2024
Background
The order addresses four administrative motions filed by Plaintiff Satish Ramachandran. One motion asked the Court to address alleged violations of the Court’s order and alleged “extrinsic frauds on court.” Another asked the Court to keep sealed its August 6, 2024 order to show cause. Two additional motions asked the Court to investigate. The Court determined that the motions could be decided without further briefing or a hearing.
Sealed July 30 Submission
Ramachandran had filed materials under seal on July 30, 2024, under the Court’s July 9, 2024 further order concerning Defendant City of Los Altos’ motion for sanctions. The Court had authorized the filing under seal and intended that the materials be available for viewing and downloading only by counsel for the City of Los Altos on an attorneys-eyes-only basis. Because of a court-staff error, the materials were also made available to counsel for Defendant Pamela Jacobs. The Court stated that this error did not result from misconduct by defense counsel.
The Court ordered counsel for Jacobs to retrieve and delete all electronic copies, retrieve and destroy all hard copies, and refrain from using the materials for any purpose. Counsel was ordered to submit a declaration confirming compliance by September 3, 2024.
August 6 Order to Show Cause
The Court ordered specified portions of the August 6 order to show cause to remain under seal. It found that Ramachandran’s motion did not show compelling reasons to seal any other portion. The Court stated that it would file a redacted copy of the August 6 order on the public docket.
Other Relief and Filing Requirements
Except for the relief expressly granted in the order, the Court denied all requests for relief in Docket Nos. 110, 111, 112, and 113. The Court also found that those filings had been submitted under seal without prior authorization and without the administrative motion required by Civil Local Rule 79-5. It ordered Ramachandran to file a compliant motion to seal by September 3, 2024, for any portions of those filings he wanted to keep sealed. The Court emphasized that parties must consider reasonable alternatives to sealing, limit sealed filings, and use redactions instead of sealing entire documents when possible. It warned that future filings submitted under seal without complying with the rule would be unsealed.
Disposition
The Court granted the specified sealing and handling relief, denied all other requested relief in the four motions, and imposed the stated filing and compliance requirements. The parties were also instructed to limit communications with the courtroom deputy to administrative matters and to copy opposing counsel on those communications.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.