McElroy v. Cox et al

Filing 87

ORDER GRANTING 86 Motion to Seal; ORDER DIRECTING Clerk to File Document Under Seal signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 8/22/2011. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14
15

LATWAHN McELROY,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
COX, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________)

1:08-cv-01221-LJO-GSA-PC
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO SEAL
(Doc. 86.)
ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO FILE
DOCUMENT UNDER SEAL

16
17

Latwahn McElroy ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this civil rights action

18

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this action on August 19, 2008.

19

(Doc. 1.) This action now proceeds with the original Complaint against defendants Correctional Officer

20

(“C/O”) Roy Cox, C/O B. Cope, C/O R. Robles, C/O Paul Rocha, C/O Thomas Acosta, C/O Sherri

21

Stinnett, and LVN M. Hankins, for excessive force and deliberate indifference in violation of the Eighth

22

Amendment.

23

On August 11, 2011, defense counsel Phillip L. Arthur (“Counsel”) filed a Motion to Withdraw

24

as counsel to defendant Phillip Rocha. (Doc. 84.) On August 11, 2011, Counsel submitted the

25

Declaration of Phillip L. Arthur (“Declaration”), in support of the Motion to Withdraw, to the Court for

26

in camera review. On August 15, 2011, Counsel filed a Motion for Order Sealing the Declaration.

27

(Doc. 86.) Counsel’s Motion for Order Sealing the Declaration is now before the Court.

28

1

1

I.

MOTION TO SEAL DOCUMENT

2

Most courts recognize a presumption of public access to court records based on common law and

3

First Amendment grounds. The public therefore normally has the right to inspect and copy documents

4

filed with the court. See Nixon v. Warner Comm., Inc.,435 U.S. 589, 597-98 (1978); Globe Newspaper

5

v. Superior Court for Norfolk County, 457 U.S. 596, 603 (1982); Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v.

6

General Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1212 (9th Cir. 2002). However, public access may be denied

7

where the court determines that court-filed documents may be used for improper purposes. Nixon, 435

8

U.S. at 598; Hagestad v. Tragesser,49 F.3d 1430, 1433-1434 (9th Cir. 1995). Courts should consider

9

“the interests advanced by the parties in light of the public interest and the duty of the courts.” Hagestad,

10

49 F.3d at 1434 (quoting Nixon,435 U.S. at 602). The Supreme Court has acknowledged that the

11

decision to seal documents is “one best left to the sound discretion of the trial court, a discretion to be

12

exercised in light of the relevant facts and circumstances of the particular case.” Nixon, 435 U.S. at 599.

13

After taking all relevant factors into consideration, the district court must base its decision on a

14

compelling reason and articulate the factual basis for its ruling, without relying on hypothesis or

15

conjecture. Hagestad, 49 F.3d at 1434. Local Rule 141 allows the court to seal documents only upon

16

written order. L. R. 141(a). Generally, the contents of such documents are of a nature that require the

17

court to maintain the confidentiality of the document. For example, the contents may reveal information

18

that may jeopardize the safety or privacy of particular individuals.

19

Counsel moves the Court for an order sealing the Declaration which was submitted to the Court

20

for in camera review. Counsel asserts that the exhibits to the Declaration, offered in support of

21

Counsel’s Motion to withdraw as counsel to defendant Rocha, contain confidential communications

22

between Counsel and defendant Rocha. Counsel also asserts that the Declaration discloses defendant

23

Rocha’s private address. Counsel argues that disclosure of the information to Plaintiff and the public

24

would invade the attorney-client and work-product privileges and place defendant Rocha's personal

25

safety at risk.

26

///

27
28

2

1

II.

DISCUSSION

2

The Court does not seal case documents or exhibits from public view without good cause. Here,

3

Counsel represents that the Declaration contains privileged communications and a private address. The

4

Court has made an in camera review of the Declaration to determine if the information is of a nature that

5

clearly would require the court to maintain confidentiality. The Court agrees that in this case the

6

disclosure of the Declaration and its exhibits would be against the public interest because the need to

7

protect privileged attorney-client communications and defendant Rocha’s private address outweighs

8

Plaintiff's need for discovery and the public's need for disclosure. The issue of whether Counsel may

9

withdraw as counsel is unrelated to the merits of Plaintiff’s case, and therefore sealing the Declaration

10

from Plaintiff’s view will not prejudice his ability to litigate this action. It is the practice of this Court

11

to maintain case documents under seal for an undetermined time period, until they are ordered unsealed

12

by the Court. Accordingly, the Court shall grant Counsel's Motion for Order Sealing the Declaration.

13

III.

CONCLUSION

14

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

15

1.

16

Defense counsel’s Motion for Order Sealing the Declaration of Phillip L. Arthur, filed
on August 15, 2011, is GRANTED; and

17

2.

The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to file under seal the Declaration of Phillip L. Arthur

18

and its exhibits, which were submitted by defense counsel to the Court for in camera

19

review on August 11, 2011, until they are ordered unsealed by the Court.

20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.

22

Dated:
6i0kij

August 22, 2011

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

23
24
25
26
27
28

3