Marlene M Pinnock v. John Doe et al

Filing 31

ORDER DENYING APPLICATION TO FILE CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL 28 . The Court orders Farrow to file the documents on the public docket. But the Court also notes that the search warrant and affidavit contain repeated references to Pinnocks full date of birth. Farrow must redact her birth year per Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2(a)(2) prior to filing the documents by Judge Otis D. Wright, II . (lc) .Modified on 8/21/2014 (lc).

O

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

United States District Court
Central District of California

8
9
10
11

MARLENE M PINNOCK,
Plaintiff,

12
13

Case № 2:14-cv-05551-ODW(ASx)

v.

ORDER DENYING APPLICATION

14

JOHN DOE; CHP COMMISSIONER

TO FILE CONFIDENTIAL

15

JOSEPH FARROW; C.H.P. OFC.D.

DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL [28]

16

ANDREW #20470; C.H.P.

17

INVESTIGATOR S. TAKETA #16454;

18

DOES 2–10,
Defendants.

19
20

“A popular Government, without popular information, or the means of

21

acquiring it, is but a Prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy; or, perhaps

22

both.”

23

—Letter from James Madison to William T. Barry, Ky. Lieutenant

24

Governor (Aug. 4, 1822).

25

On August 20, 2014, Defendant Joseph Farrow filed an Application to File

26

Confidential Documents Under Seal. (ECF No. 28.) Defendant Sean Taketa joined in

27

the request. (ECF No. 29.) Farrow and Taketa seek to seal a search warrant and

28

affidavit written by Taketa approved by a Los Angeles County Superior Court judge

1

on July 14, 2014. They contend that these documents contain information pertaining

2

to an ongoing criminal and administrative investigation and that the Superior Court

3

judge ordered that the documents remain confidential. They also assert that California

4

Evidence Code section 1040 and Government Code section 6254 preclude disclosure

5

of the warrant and accompanying affidavit.

6

The United States Supreme Court has recognized that it is “clear that the courts

7

of this country recognize a general right to inspect and copy public records and

8

documents, including judicial records and documents.” Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns,

9

Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978) (footnote omitted). Similarly, the Ninth Circuit stated

10

that there is a “strong presumption in favor of access to court records.” Foltz v. State

11

Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003). In order to override

12

this weighty presumption, a party must demonstrate “sufficiently compelling reasons”

13

for sealing the documents. Id. Any request “must articulate compelling reasons

14

supported by specific factual findings” why each individual exhibit merits filing under

15

seal. Kamakana v. City & Cnty of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). A

16

court will then balance the public’s interest in accessing these documents with the

17

confidentiality and potential for misuse of the information. Hagestad v. Tragesser, 49

18

F.3d 1430, 1434 (9th Cir. 1995).

19

In this instance, the scales are closely balanced. On one hand, it is beyond cavil

20

that California officials must have some degree of secrecy surrounding their criminal

21

investigations in order to properly effectuate their job. The Superior Court judge also

22

reasoned that “the information contained in [the] application and Affidavit, if made

23

public, would jeopardize the safety of the office and his family.”

24

But on the other hand, the public has a compelling First Amendment interest in

25

having access to this and all other information surrounding this civil case. The Court

26

has extensively reviewed the search warrant and affidavit and sees no information that

27

could jeopardize the officer’s safety or the ongoing investigations. Pinnock’s First

28

Amended Complaint already identifies most of the information, such as the alleged

2

1

facts surrounding Defendant Andrew’s use of force. Vague references to “safety” and

2

“ongoing investigations” alone are not dire enough to lock tight the Court’s files and

3

cut off the public’s access to these documents. This nation’s courts remain open for

4

any person—litigant or otherwise—to enter its halls, inspect its records, and see

5

justice being done. The Court finds that Farrow and Taketa have not carried their

6

burden of demonstrating sufficiently necessary reasons for denying the public that

7

access.

8
9

The Court accordingly DENIES the Application to File Confidential
Documents Under Seal.

(ECF No. 28.)

The Court orders Farrow to file the

10

documents on the public docket. But the Court also notes that the search warrant and

11

affidavit contain repeated references to Pinnock’s full date of birth. Farrow must

12

redact her birth year per Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2(a)(2) prior to filing the

13

documents.

14

IT IS SO ORDERED.

15
16

August 21, 2014

17
18
19
20

____________________________________
OTIS D. WRIGHT, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3