Morales et al v. City of Delano et al

Filing 74

ORDER Granting In Part Request to Seal 72 , ORDER to Plaintiffs to SHOW CAUSE, and ORDER to Defendants to Lodge signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 11/4/2011. Show Cause Response due by 11/18/2011. (Leon-Guerrero, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14
15
16

MANUELA CANCINO CONTRERAS
MORALES, et al.,

)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
vs.
)
)
CITY OF DELANO, et al.
)
)
Defendants.
)
__________________________________ )

17

Case No. 1:10-cv-1203-AWI-JLT
ORDER GRANTING IN PART REQUEST TO
SEAL DOCUMENTS
(Doc. 72)
ORDER TO PLAINTIFFS TO SHOW CAUSE
WHY SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE
IMPOSED FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH
THE PROTECTIVE ORDER
ORDER TO DEFENDANTS TO LODGE A
STATEMENT RE: PLAINTIFF’S EXHIBIT 1

18
19

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s request to seal documents already filed on the public

20

docket. (Doc. 72) The request is made in response to Defendant’s request for sanctions (Doc.

21

68) for violations of the Court’s protective order they contend were committed by Plaintiffs.

22

(Doc. 39)

23

“A motion to seal documents that are not part of the judicial record, such as ‘private

24

materials unearthed during discovery,’ is governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c).”

25

Seals v. Mitchell, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38654 at * 2-3 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 30, 2011). The Court

26

may grant a protective order “to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment,

27

oppression, or undue burden or expense.” Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678

1

(9th Cir. 2010).

2

To determine whether materials attached to a non-dispositive motion should be filed

3

under seal, the Court must evaluate whether there are compelling reasons that “outweigh the

4

general history of access and the public favoring disclosure.” Pintos, at 678 (quoting Kamakana

5

v. City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1180 (9th Cir. 2006). With this authority in mind,

6

the Court reviews the exhibits, or portions thereof, at dispute.

7

A.

Exhibit 1

8

This exhibit sets forth a home address for Officer Mejia. Under California law, this

9

information is strictly confidential under the Peace Officers’ Bill of Right. Cal. Pen. Code. § 830

10

et seq. Though this confidentiality does not exist in federal court, the rationale for keeping peace

11

officer information confidential, is sound. Peace Officers should not be placed in fear for their

12

own safety or that of their spouses and children because of public disclosure of their personal

13

residential addresses. Thus, Plaintiff’s erred by filing Exhibit 1 into the public docket without

14

first seeking an order sealing this information.

15

Plaintiffs’ argument that Defendants were obligated to demonstrate that the address listed

16

on Exhibit 1 is current before Plaintiffs were required to seek a sealing order, misses the point.

17

This sort of information is exactly the type for which the protective order was issued. The time

18

for debating whether this information should be confidential under the protective order, has

19

passed. Thus, the Court will order Doc. 60-1 stricken from the public record. The Court will

20

order the address contained on the exhibit to be SEALED. Within two court days of the service

21

of this order, Plaintiffs are ORDERED to file a redacted copy of the document with the address

22

of the officer completely obliterated.

23

B.

24

Exhibit 5, page 189, Exhibit 6 p. 89, Exhibit 10, page 135
Though Exhibit 5, page 189 (Doc. 60-5 at 35), Exhibit 6, page 89 (Doc. 60-6 at 6) and

25

Exhibit 10, page 135 (Doc. 60-10 at 15), contain information regarding the events at issue here,

26

there is no compelling reason that it should be kept from the public view. The information is not

27
2

1

confidential and it bears on the events which give rise to the death of Plaintiffs’ decedent. Thus,

2

the request to seal these documents is DENIED.

3

C.

Exhibit 11, pages 121, 122, 126, 127

4

On pages 121, 126 and 127, there is discussion in the transcript related to training

5

provided by the Delano Police Department. Likewise, at page 122 (excluding lines 23-25), there

6

is discussion about whether unnamed officers have suffered discipline regarding other

7

undescribed events. There is nothing in these pages that convince the Court that they should be

8

sealed. Therefore the request to seal these pages (excluding lines 23-25 on page 122) is

9

DENIED.

10

However, lines 23 to 25 of page 122, once again, delve into confidential personnel

11

records of a peace officer. The question asked and the answer bear on liability issues of the

12

entity but is improperly publicly disclosed. Therefore, Exhibit 11 SHALL be stricken from the

13

public record. The Court ORDERS lines 23 to 25 of page 122 of Exhibit 11 to be SEALED.

14

Within two court days of the service of this order, Plaintiffs are ORDERED to file a redacted

15

copy of Exhibit 11 with lines 23 to 25 of page 122 completely obliterated.

16

D.

Exhibit 18

17

Exhibit 18 contains certain portions of a deposition of an Internal Affairs investigation.

18

These investigations are confidential and are not publicly available for sound reasons. Officers

19

and witnesses must be free to participate in these investigations without fear of retaliation.

20

Moreover, the California Supreme Court in Lybarger v. City of Los Angeles, 40 Cal.3d 822

21

(1985), emphasized the compulsory nature of Internal Affairs investigations. Part of the

22

underlying rationale for the Lybarger decision was that the investigations would remain

23

confidential. Thus, the Court finds a compelling reason to protect the confidentiality of the

24

Internal Affairs investigation. As a result, Exhibit 18 is STRICKEN from the public docket.

25

Instead, the Court will order the following portions sealed:

26

1.

Lines 17-23 of page 26 (Doc. 60-18 at 7);

27
3

1

2.

Lines 3-23 of page 28 (Doc. 60-18 at 8);

2

3.

Lines 7-22 of page 71 (Doc. 60-18 at 9);

3

4.

Lines 2-11 of page 72 (Doc. 60-18 at 10);

4

5.

All of page 78 (Doc. 60-18 at 11).

5

Within two court days of the service of this order, Plaintiffs are ORDERED to file a redacted

6

copy of Exhibit 18 with these portions obliterated.

7

ORDER

8

For the reasons set forth above, the Court ORDERS;

9

1.

Within two days of service of this order, Plaintiffs SHALL lodge with the Court,

10

to [e-mail], electronic copies of Exhibits 1, 11 and 18 to the Declaration of

11

Lanny Tron;

12

2.

13

public docket. (Doc. 60-1);

14

Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of Lanny Tron, SHALL be STRICKEN from the

a.

15

contained on Doc. 60-1;

16

b.

17
18

The Court Clerk SHALL file under SEAL the address information

Plaintiff’s SHALL re-file a redacted, public version of Exhibit 1,
consistent with this order, within two court days of service of this order;

3.

Exhibit 11 to the Declaration of Lanny Tron, SHALL be STRICKEN from the

19

public docket. (Doc. 60-11)

20

a.

21

(Doc. 60-11 at p. 10, lines 23-25);

22

b.

23
24

The Court Clerk SHALL file under SEAL lines 23 to 25 of page 122

Plaintiff’s SHALL re-file a redacted, public version of Exhibit 11,
consistent with this order, within two court days of service of this order;

4.

Exhibit 18 to the Declaration of Lanny Tron, SHALL be STRICKEN from the

25

public docket. (Doc. 60-18)

26

a.

The Court Clerk SHALL file under SEAL the following:

27
4

1

i.

Lines 17-23 of page 26 (Doc. 60-18 at 7);

2

ii.

Lines 3-23 of page 28 (Doc. 60-18 at 8);

3

iii.

Lines 7-22 of page 71 (Doc. 60-18 at 9);

4

iv.

Lines 2-11 of page 72 (Doc. 60-18 at 10);

5

v.

All of page 78 (Doc. 60-18 at 11).

6

b.

7

Plaintiff’s SHALL re-file a redacted, public version of Exhibit 18,
consistent with this order, within two court days of service of this order;

8

5.

In all other respects, the Request to Seal (Doc. 72) is DENIED.

9

6.

Within 14 days of service of this order, Plaintiffs SHALL show cause why

10

sanctions should not be imposed for their failure to comply with the protective

11

order;

12

7.

Within 14 days of service of this order, Defendants SHALL lodge a letter to the

13

Court to [e-mail], with a copy to Plaintiffs’ counsel,

14

detailing whether the address set forth in Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of Lanny

15

Tron is the current address for Officer Mejia.

16

IT IS SO ORDERED.

17

Dated: November 4, 2011
9j7khi

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
5