Giovanni Ferdinand v. Officer Joseph Pollack et al

Filing 100

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: SEALING EXHIBITS by Judge Fernando M. Olguin. IT IS ORDERED THAT, no later than 5:00 p.m. on July 7, 2016, defendants shall show cause in writing why the sealed exhibits submitted with plaintiff's Application (Dkt. 96) should not be unsealed. Defendants shall address, at minimum: (1) their compelling reasons for sealing the exhibits despite the strong presumption in favor of public access to court records; and (2) the specific factual findings supporting those compelling reasons. Failure to submit a response to this Order by the deadline set forth above shall be deemed as consent to the unsealing of the exhibits at issue. (jloz)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

CV 14-7056 FMO (JPRx)

Title

Giovanni Ferdinand v. Officer Joseph Pollack, et al.

Present: The Honorable

Date

July 5, 2016

Fernando M. Olguin, United States District Judge

Julieta Lozano

None

None

Deputy Clerk

Court Reporter / Recorder

Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiff:

Attorney Present for Defendants:

None Present

None Present

Proceedings:

(In Chambers) Order to Show Cause Re: Sealing Exhibits

On July 5, 2016, the court granted plaintiff’s Application for Leave to File Documents Under
Seal Pursuant to Local Rule 79-5.2.2 (Dkt. 96, “Application”). (See Dkt. 98, Court’s Order of July
5, 2016). Having reviewed the record and its order granting the Application, the court has
determined that it erred in granting plaintiff’s Application.
On June 28, 2016, defendants filed their Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Dkt. 94,
“Motion”), along with the related papers required by the court’s Order Re: Summary Judgment
Motions. (See Dkt. 92, Court’s Order of March 4, 2016, at 2-4). Defense counsel refused to
include four of plaintiff’s exhibits in the Evidentiary Appendix on the theory that these exhibits
should be sealed pursuant to the protective order entered on February 11, 2015. (See Dkt. 96-1,
Declaration of Amanda J. Parker (“Parker Decl.”) at Exh. 1, E-mail from Elizabeth Mitchell to
Amanda Parker on June 28, 2016, at 7:29 a.m.; Dkt. 24, Court’s Order of February 11, 2015,
(“Proposed Order”) at ¶ 16). Defense counsel’s refusal to include these exhibits in the Evidentiary
Appendix forced plaintiff to submit the Application in order to present the exhibits for the court’s
consideration. (See Dkt. 96, Application at 2).
Defendants, not plaintiff, have an interest in sealing the exhibits at issue. (See Dkt. 96-1,
Parker Decl. at Exh. 1, E-mail from Elizabeth Mitchell to Amanda Parker on June 27, 2016, at
11:11 a.m.). Plaintiff initially included those exhibits in the Evidentiary Appendix, but defense
counsel twice removed them on the belief that they should be sealed. (See id. at Exh. 1, E-mail
from Amanda Parker to Elizabeth Mitchell on June 27, 2016, at 12:37 p.m.). As a result,
defendants, not plaintiff, were obligated to file an Application for Leave to File Under Seal pursuant
to Local Rule 79-5.2.2. Defendants failed to do so. (See, generally, Dkt.).
When considering whether to seal a document, the court “start[s] with a strong presumption
in favor of access to court records.” Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135
(9th Cir. 2003). A party seeking to overcome that presumption – here, defendants – must
articulate “compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the general
history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure[.]” Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of
Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178-79 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

CV 14-7056 FMO (JPRx)

Date

Title

Giovanni Ferdinand v. Officer Joseph Pollack, et al.

July 5, 2016

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT, no later than 5:00 p.m. on July 7, 2016, defendants
shall show cause in writing why the sealed exhibits submitted with plaintiff’s Application (Dkt. 96)
should not be unsealed. Defendants shall address, at minimum: (1) their compelling reasons for
sealing the exhibits despite the strong presumption in favor of public access to court records; and
(2) the specific factual findings supporting those compelling reasons. Failure to submit a
response to this Order by the deadline set forth above shall be deemed as consent to the
unsealing of the exhibits at issue.

00
Initials of Preparer

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

:

00

jloz

Page 2 of 2