Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Aug. 4, 2023

Harper v. Trumbull

Judge
Haywood Gilliam
Docket
4:23-cv-02623
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
2
Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Harper v. Trumbull, Judge Gilliam sealed filings containing a former magistrate judge’s home address and ordered redacted versions filed.

Who this affects

The order limits public access to specified filings in Harper’s case and protects the home-address information of the former judicial officer identified in those filings.

What happened

In Harper v. Trumbull, pro se plaintiff Paul Allen Harper filed several documents that appeared to include a retired U.S. magistrate judge’s home address.

The court found that public disclosure was unnecessary for understanding the dispute and created obvious security concerns. It ordered the Clerk’s Office to seal docket entries 9, 10, 11, 14, 16, 17, and 18 and to file redacted versions. A footnote states that certain attachments without the address did not need to be sealed.

Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. issued the sealing order on August 4, 2023, under the good-cause provision of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2(e).

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Harper v. Trumbull · No. 4:23-cv-02623
Judge
Haywood Gilliam
Date
Aug. 4, 2023

Background

Pro se plaintiff Paul Allen Harper filed several documents that appeared to contain the home address of a retired U.S. magistrate judge. The documents were docket entries 9, 10, 11, 14, 16, 17, and 18.

Reasoning

The court recognized a strong presumption that court records should be publicly accessible. It also relied on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2(e), which allows a court, for good cause, to require redaction or limit or prohibit remote public access to a filed document. The court found good cause because public disclosure of the address was not necessary for the public to understand the dispute and created obvious security concerns for a former judicial officer.

Order

The court directed the Clerk’s Office to seal docket entries 9, 10, 11, 14, 16, 17, and 18 and to electronically file the attached redacted versions as standalone docket documents. A footnote clarified that docket entries 9-1, 16-1, and 17-1 did not include the address and therefore did not need to be sealed. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. entered the order on August 4, 2023.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.