Bruce v. Woodford, et al.

Filing 231

ORDER DENYING Defendants' 167 Request to File Documents Under Seal, signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 7/22/16. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

VINCENT C. BRUCE,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

v.
JEANNE WOODFORD, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:07-cv-00269-BAM PC
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’
REQUEST TO FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL
(ECF No. 167)

17
18

Plaintiff Vincent C. Bruce (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights

19

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action currently proceeds on Plaintiff’s claims against

20

Defendants Adams, Hense, Ward, Clark, Fulks, Wan, Frauenheim, Lloren, Fields and Tripp for

21

retaliation in violation of the First Amendment; Defendants Adams, Hense, Ward, Clark, Fulks, Wan,

22

Lloren, Fields and Tripp for violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment; and

23

Defendants Adams, Schottgen and Fields for failing to provide Plaintiff with adequate clothing in

24

violation of the Eighth Amendment. All parties have consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction. (ECF

25

Nos. 4, 104.)

26

Defendants filed a motion requesting an order sealing documents that they propose to submit in

27

support of their summary judgment motion, consisting of reports from a 2004 confidential

28

investigation of Plaintiff related to this matter. (ECF No. 167.) The documents in question were
1

1

provided to the Court for in camera review, and safety and security concerns were cited and explained

2

as the basis for excluding Plaintiff from service of the documents themselves. Plaintiff was provided

3

with the request to seal, and opposed it. (ECF No. 195.) Defendants filed a reply to Plaintiff’s

4

opposition. (ECF No. 221.) The motion is deemed submitted. Local Rule 230(l).

5

Filings in cases such as this are a matter of public record absent compelling justification. See

6

Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). The party seeking to

7

seal a judicial record bears the burden of overcoming the strong presumption in favor of public access

8

by showing compelling reasons for sealing the records. Id. Here, the documents in question were the

9

subject of a previous dispute between the parties. Plaintiff sought to compel documents that referred to

10

the February 27, 2004 hunger strike at issue in this case, that Defendants objected to producing.

11

Defendants admitted that certain confidential memoranda, including reports containing the identify of

12

confidential informants, were responsive to Plaintiff’s discovery request. They argued, however, that

13

the documents were privileged and confidential. Plaintiff argued that he should be disclosed those

14

portions of the memoranda that did not contain protected confidential information or the identity of

15

any informants, but Defendants still objected. Specifically, Defendants argued that even limited

16

disclosure of the memoranda could severely threaten the safety and security of the institution.

17

Defendants produced a privilege log and declaration in support of these contentions.

18

Based on Defendant’s arguments and evidence that even limited disclosure under a carefully

19

crafted protective order would create a substantial risk of harm to significant governmental interests,

20

and that the harm from disclosure could potentially affect the safety and security of all institutions,

21

staff and inmates, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion to compel. (ECF No. 179, p. 8-9.) However, the

22

Court cautioned Defendants that they could not rely on the confidential memoranda at trial, absent

23

disclosure to Plaintiff. Those confidential memoranda are the confidential investigation reports that

24

Defendants now seek to submit under seal and rely upon in moving for summary judgment.

25

The Court finds that its prior order precluding Defendants from relying on these documents at

26

trial absent disclosure to Plaintiff is equally applicable to their attempt to submit and rely on these

27

documents for summary judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1). As a result, Defendants request to submit

28

the documents under seal is denied, and the documents will not be considered in the Court’s
2

1

determination of Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. To clarify, the Court is not requiring

2

Defendants to disclose the documents to Plaintiff at this time. Plaintiff’s argument that Defendants’

3

attempt to submit and rely on the documents is a waiver of their prior objections and assertions of

4

privilege, is rejected. Nevertheless, the Court re-affirms that Defendants cannot submit and rely on

5

these documents at summary judgment or at trial in this matter, absent disclosure to Plaintiff.

6
7

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ request to seal documents (ECF No.
167) is DENIED.

8
9
10
11

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Barbara

July 22, 2016

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3