# Groveman v. UC Davis

> District Court, E.D. California · October 17, 2024

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10638005

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, E.D. California
- **Decided:** October 17, 2024
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10638005

## Opinion text

1 DAVID M. ROSENBERG-WOHL (S.B. MATTHEW R. COWAN (S.B. #281114)
#132924) mcowan@omm.com
2
david@hrw-law.com O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP
3 Hershenson Rosenberg-Wohl, 400 South Hope Street, 19th Floor
A Professional Corporation Los Angeles, California 90071-2899
4 3080 Washington St. Telephone: (213) 430-6000
San Francisco, CA 94115 Facsimile: (213) 430-6407
5 Telephone: (415) 317-7756
MEAGHAN VERGOW*
6
Attorney for Plaintiff mvergow@omm.com
7 O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP
1625 Eye Street, NW
8 Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 383-5300
9 Facsimile: (202) 383-5414

10
ANTON METLITSKY*
11 ametlitsky@omm.com
JENNIFER SOKOLER*
12 jsokoler@omm.com
O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP
13 1301 Avenue of the Americas, Suite 1700
New York, NY 10019
14
Telephone: (212) 326-2000
15 Facsimile: (212) 326-2061

16 Attorneys for Defendants
*Admitted pro hac vice
17
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
18
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
19
JONATHAN GROVEMAN, Case No. 2:24-cv-01421-DJC-AC
20
Plaintiff, DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF
21 REQUEST TO REDACT LIMITED
PORTIONS OF EXHIBIT IN SUPPORT
22 v. OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO
DISMISS; ORDER
23 REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF
CALIFORNIA, MICHAEL V. DRAKE, Assigned to Hon. Daniel J. Calabretta
24 GARY S. MAY, MARY CROUGHAN, Courtroom 10
25 R SHEN INE NT ET RA L G , PA AR BR LIS OO RN E T GU UL EL R, IC NL , A AR NE D
26 D OES 1-10,
Defendants.
27

28
1 Pursuant to Local Rule 140 and this Court’s Standing Order in Civil Cases,
2 Defendants The Regents of the University of California, Michael V. Drake, Gary S. May,
3 Mary Croughan, Renetta Garrison Tull, Clare Shinnerl, and Pablo Reguerin
4 (“Defendants”) respectfully request leave to redact personally identifiable information in a
5 single exhibit in support of Defendants’ anticipated motion to dismiss the first amended
6 complaint. Plaintiff consents to this request and has approved of the proposed
7 redactions.
8 Per this Court’s most recent order regarding the briefing schedule, the deadline
9 for Defendants to respond to the amended complaint is October 17, 2024. (ECF No.
10 29.) Defendants anticipate filing a motion to dismiss, accompanied by several
11 supporting exhibits comprising documents incorporated into the complaint. One
12 supporting exhibit consists of an email Plaintiff sent to officials at the University of
13 California, Davis with an attachment of a report that Plaintiff filed with the U.S.
14 Department of Justice. The report contains Plaintiff’s home address and phone number.
15 Defendants seek permission to redact that sensitive personal information in its filing
16 before this Court. A copy of the exhibit with the proposed redactions is attached hereto
17 as Exhibit A.
18 Pursuant to Local Rule 140 and this Court’s Standing Order in Civil Cases, prior
19 approval of the Court is required in order to redact this information. Redaction is
20 warranted here “[i]n light of legitimate privacy concerns.” Brown v. Elk Grove Unified
21 Sch. Dist., No. 2:17-CV-00396-KJM-DB, 2019 WL 13095063, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 19,
22 2019) (granting request to redact telephone numbers and home addresses); see also,
23 e.g., Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1184 (9th Cir. 2006) (affirming
24 order permitting redaction of home addresses); Kemper Indep. Ins. Co. v. Wells, No.
25 117CV01612AWISAB, 2018 WL 558791, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 25, 2018) (authorizing
26 redaction of defendants' home addresses); Pryor v. City of Clearlake, No. C 11-0954
27 CW, 2012 WL 3276992, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 9, 2012) (authorizing redaction of
28
1 information including addresses and telephone numbers). “[T]he public’s interest in
2 access to documents,” Kemper, 2018 WL 558791, at *1, will be safeguarded because
3 the vast majority of the document will remain publicly accessible, and the minimal
4 information proposed to be redacted has no bearing on the issues in the case or
5 arguments raised in the motion to dismiss. For these reasons, Defendants respectfully
6 request that this Court authorize the limited redactions sought by Defendants and
7 consented to by Plaintiff.
8
Dated: October 15, 2024. By: /s/ Matthew R. Cowan
9
Matthew R. Cowan
10
Attorney for Defendants
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1 ORDER
2 This Court, having considered the Request to Redact Limited Portions of Exhibit
3 in Support of Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendants The Regents of the
4 University of California, Michael V. Drake, Gary S. May, Mary Croughan, Renetta
5 Garrison Tull, Clare Shinnerl, and Pablo Reguerin (“Defendants”), and compelling
6 reason appearing therefor, hereby ORDERS as follows:
7 Defendants’ Request to Redact Limited Portions of Exhibit in Support of
8 Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. Defendants may file the exhibit with
9 Plaintiff’s home address and phone number redacted.
10
11 IT IS SO ORDERED.
12

13 Dated: October 16, 2024 /s/ Daniel J. Calabretta
THE HONORABLE DANIEL J. CALABRETTA
14
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
15

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10638005. Public record. Not legal advice.