United States v. Hughes
- Joseph Spero
- 3:18-cv-05931
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In United States v. Hughes, Judge Spero granted Timberly Hughes’s request to seal exhibits containing personal information and attached the court’s standing orders.
Timberly E. Hughes, the self-represented defendant who requested sealing, and the public docket containing the sealed exhibits.
What happened
Timberly E. Hughes, representing herself, asked the court by email to seal exhibits filed with docket entry 68 after previously filing personal information publicly. The court had earlier noted that she waived the usual protection for that information under a federal court filing rule.
The court granted Hughes’s request and sealed docket entries 68-3 through 68-6 because they contained her personal information. It also said future requests to seal must follow the court’s normal filing procedures and that email requests would be disregarded.
In United States v. Hughes, Judge Spero attached the court’s civil standing orders, which had been omitted from an earlier order because of an administrative error. The court also encouraged Hughes to contact the Federal Pro Bono Project’s help desk for basic assistance.
The detailed version
- United States v. Hughes · No. 3:18-cv-05931
- Joseph Spero
- Sept. 8, 2020
Background
Timberly E. Hughes, proceeding without a lawyer, filed several motions on September 4, 2020. In an order issued that day, the court said Hughes had waived the protection of Rule 5.2 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by placing personal information in exhibits on the public docket. Hughes later emailed the courtroom deputy an ex parte request—meaning a request made without the usual formal filing process—to seal the exhibits attached to docket entry 68.
Sealing request
The court explained that sealing documents in a federal court docket is generally an exception and ordinarily requires “compelling reasons.” It also stated that requests to seal must be made through an administrative motion filed in the public record when the document is filed, following Civil Local Rule 79-5. Requests must be narrowly tailored, and a party may still have to file a public version with only sensitive information redacted.
Taking into account Hughes’s status as a self-represented party, the court granted her ex parte request in this instance. It sealed docket entries 68-3 through 68-6, each of which contained Hughes’s personal information that otherwise would have been protected by Rule 5.2. The court directed Hughes to use the proper procedures for future sealing requests and stated that future requests made by email would be disregarded. It encouraged both parties to redact sensitive information that was not relevant to the purpose of a filing.
Standing orders and assistance
The court attached its civil standing orders because an administrative error had caused them to be omitted from the earlier order. The court apologized for any confusion. It also encouraged Hughes to contact the Federal Pro Bono Project’s Pro Se Help Desk, which could provide basic assistance but not legal representation. The order was entered by Judge Joseph C. Spero on September 8, 2020.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.