Hall et al v. Mims et al
Filing
188
ORDER DENYING Dominic Hanna's Motion to Intervene and Unseal Court Records (Doc. 177). (1) Hannas Motion to Intervene for the limited purpose of filing a Motion to Unseal is hereby DENIED as MOOT; (2) To the extent Hannas motion seeks an order unsealing the expert reports of: (1) Dr. Michael Puisis regarding Fresno County Jails medical program, (2) Richard Hayward, Ph.D., regarding Fresno County Jails mental health program, and (3) David Rardin, regarding Fresno County Jails Operations Review, the motion is DENIED. signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 12/11/2015. (Herman, H)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
8
9
10
11
QUENTIN HALL, SHAWN GONZALES,
ROBERT MERRYMAN, DAWN SINGH,
and BRIAN MURPHY, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Case No. 1:11-cv-2047-LJO-BAM
ORDER DENYING DOMINIC HANNA’S
MOTION TO INTERVENE AND
UNSEAL COURT RECORDS
(Doc. 177)
12
13
COUNTY OF FRESNO,
Defendant.
14
15
16
Potential Intervenor Dominic Hanna (“Hanna”) moves to intervene in this now closed
17
proceeding between Plaintiffs Quentin Hall, et al and Defendant the County of Fresno pursuant to
18
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(b). Hanna’s Motion to Intervene seeks to unseal three of four
19
expert reports filed in this action. Hanna filed the instant motion on October 28, 2015, and shortly
20
thereafter, the Court ordered supplemental briefing regarding the timeliness of the motion.
21
November 18, 2015, Hanna filed his supplemental briefing. (Doc. 184). Defendant County of
22
Fresno filed an opposition to the motion on November 25, 2015. (Doc. 185). Pursuant to Local
23
Rule 230(c), the Court took the matter under submission and vacated the hearing set for
24
December 11, 2015.
25
papers, and the entire file, Hanna’s motion is DENIED for the reasons set forth below.
26
On
(Doc. 187). Having considered the moving, opposition, supplemental
BACKGROUND
27
This case is a putative class action regarding conditions at the Fresno County Jail (“Jail”).
28
Plaintiffs are prisoners who are or have been incarcerated in the Fresno County Jail (collectively
1
“Hall parties”). The class consists of all prisoners who are now, or will in the future be,
2
incarcerated in the Jail. Defendant is the County of Fresno, which is responsible for the operation
3
of the Jail.
4
Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint alleged that the conditions in the Jail violated the
5
constitutional and statutory rights of all prisoners who were or will be housed in the Jail.
6
Specifically, the Complaint alleged that the Jail does not provide prisoners with access to
7
adequate medical, mental health and dental care in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth
8
Amendments; prisoners are not reasonably protected from injury and violence from other
9
prisoners in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments; and that prisoners are not
10
provided with reasonable accommodations for their disabilities in violation of the Americans with
11
Disabilities Act and section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. FAC. ¶ 23.
12
On June 1, 2012, Defendant filed its answer to the amended complaint denying the
13
material allegations and asserting affirmative defenses. The parties thereafter began class
14
certification discovery. The parties subsequently agreed to suspend discovery for the purpose of
15
settlement negotiations. On February 21, 2013, the parties agreed to a process whereby experts
16
agreeable to both parties would inspect the Jail and issue reports and recommendations. Pursuant
17
to that agreement, experts inspected the Jail and provided the parties with their reports and
18
recommendations. Based on those recommendations, the parties engaged in extensive settlement
19
negotiations, which included significant Court participation and management. Over a two-year
20
period, in over fifteen status conferences, the Court provided guidance and supervision of the
21
settlement negotiations and engaged the parties in settlement discussions. The discussions and
22
negotiations generally centered on the experts’ findings and remedial measures to address alleged
23
deficiencies.
24
On May 28, 2015, after over two years of extensive settlement negotiations, the parties
25
executed a proposed Consent Decree. Counsel for Plaintiffs sought preliminary Court approval of
26
the Consent Decree and filed a Motion for Preliminary Approval indicating that the parties had
27
reached a final settlement of all claims. (Doc. 112). On that same day, the parties jointly moved
28
for an order directing the clerk to file under seal the expert reports prepared for the purpose of
-2-
1
settlement. (Doc. 114). Specifically, the parties requested to seal the expert reports of (1) Dr.
2
Michael Puisis regarding Fresno County Jail’s medical program, (2) Richard Hayward, Ph.D.,
3
regarding Fresno County Jail’s mental health program, (3) David Rardin, regarding Fresno
4
County Jail’s Operations Review, and (4) Disability Rights California, regarding Fresno County
5
Jail’s ADA procedures and practices. (Doc. 114).
6
On June 2, 2015, the Court issued a protective order, permitting the Hall parties, pursuant
7
to Local Rule 141, to file “Confidential” documents under seal. (Doc. 119). On June 8, 2015, the
8
Court permitted counsel to file under seal the four expert reports prepared for the parties during
9
the course of their settlement negotiations.
10
(Doc. 123).
The Court’s June 8, 2015 found
compelling reasons to file the reports under seal. (Doc. 123).
11
As a result of that sealing order, Hanna now seeks permissive intervention pursuant to
12
Rule 24(b), for the limited purpose of unsealing three of the four expert reports. Hanna contends
13
the reports allegedly pertain to issues directly relevant to Hanna’s civil rights action, Hanna v.
14
County of Fresno, et al., 1:14-cv-00142-LJO-SKO, concerning the conditions, policies and
15
practices at the Fresno County Jail during the relevant time period in Hall. In Hanna v. County of
16
Fresno, Hanna alleges he was booked into the Fresno County Jail on February 6, 2012, where
17
within three days he attempted suicide twice causing him to be permanently disabled and
18
immobilized. His complaint alleges that the individual and county defendants’ mental health,
19
medical health, construction and security operations, failed to provide and/or enforce adequate
20
policies and practices for the protection and care of the mentally ill and inmates with suicidal
21
histories and ideation. See, Hanna, (Doc. 39), Third Amended Complaint.
22
Prior to filing the motion to intervene, Hanna contacted counsel for the Hall Plaintiffs who
23
stated that he “does not oppose [Hanna’s] motion to intervene.” See Declaration of Robert
24
Navarro (“Navarro Decl.”) ¶ 2, Doc. 177-1. Defendant County of Fresno, however, opposes the
25
Motion on three grounds: (1) Hanna’s motion is untimely; (2) intervention is prejudicial to the
26
County; and (3) compelling reasons exist to maintain the records under seal. Hanna responds that
27
the motion is timely and compelling reasons do not exist to keep the expert reports under seal.
28
-3-
LEGAL STANDARD
1
2
“Nonparties seeking access to a judicial record in a civil case may do so by seeking
3
permissive intervention under Rule 24(b) . . . .” San Jose Mercury News, Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Court--
4
N. Dist. (San Jose), 187 F.3d 1096, 1100 (9th Cir. 1999) superseded in other respects by Fed. R.
5
Civ. P. 5(c). Rule 24(b) ordinarily requires the intervenor to show “(1) an independent ground for
6
jurisdiction; (2) a timely motion; and (3) a common question of law and fact between the
7
movant’s claim or defense and the main action.” Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d
8
470, 473 (9th Cir. 1992). However, where a nonparty proposes to intervene solely for the limited
9
purpose of ensuring public access to court documents, no independent ground for jurisdiction is
10
required. Id.
11
Ordinarily, there is a strong presumption that court records should be open to public
12
inspection. Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978). However, the right is not
13
absolute, and public access may be denied, for example, where the records involved contain
14
sensitive business information, the release of which “might harm a litigant’s competitive
15
standing.” Id. at 598. “[M]ost judicial records may be sealed only if the court finds ‘compelling
16
reasons.’ However, a less exacting ‘good cause’ standard applies to . . . previously sealed
17
discovery attached to a nondispositive motion.” Oliner v. Kontrabecki, 745 F.3d 1024, 1025 (9th
18
Cir. 2014) (citations omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).
DISCUSSION
19
20
1.
Motion to Intervene
21
Hanna argues that he has satisfied the requirements for permissive intervention under Rule
22
24(b) because he has intervened in a timely manner and his attempt to unseal the expert reports in
23
this case clearly shares “common questions of law and fact” with the main action. Of the three
24
requirements for permissive intervention under Rule 24(b)—commonality, timeliness, and
25
jurisdiction—Defendant challenges only whether Hanna’s motion is timely.
26
As to Defendant’s assertion of untimeliness, Defendant argues that the expert reports at
27
issue were ordered sealed by the Court on June 8, 2015. (Doc. 123). At that time, Hanna did not
28
move to intervene and/or oppose the parties’ Joint Request to Seal (Doc.122), instead waiting
-4-
1
almost four and a half months after the Court made its determination to seal the reports.
2
Defendant further argues that Hanna fails to provide any justification for this delay.
3
Citing to Blum v. Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner & Smith Inc., 712 F.3d 1349 (9th Cir.
4
2013), Hanna argues that public policy strongly militates against a strict timeliness requirement
5
when challenging a protective order and that, as a practical and policy matter, Hanna could not
6
have sought to intervene any sooner than now. Blum, 712 F.3d at 1353 (“motions to intervene for
7
the purpose of seeking modification of a protective order in long-concluded litigation are not
8
untimely.”). Hanna explains that the Court’s prior order sealing the expert reports did so for the
9
explicit reason of furthering settlement. Hanna believed that attempting to intervene before the
10
settlement was finalized would have violated the spirit and goal of the order to seal. Thus, in an
11
effort to respect the Hall parties’ settlement efforts, Hanna delayed seeking intervention to unseal
12
the expert reports. Now that settlement has finalized, the motion to intervene is ripe for the Court
13
to consider.
14
“Courts weigh three factors in determining whether a motion to intervene is timely: ‘(1)
15
the stage of the proceeding at which an applicant seeks to intervene; (2) the prejudice to other
16
parties; and (3) the reason for and length of the delay.’” Cal. Dep’t of Toxic Substances Control v.
17
Commercial Realty Projects, Inc., 309 F.3d 1113, 1119 (9th Cir. 2002)). When considering a
18
motion to intervene, “[t]imeliness is a flexible concept and its determination is left to the district
19
court’s discretion.” Id.
20
The Court finds that despite the arguable delay in seeking the proposed intervention,
21
Hanna’s motion to intervene is timely. Nonetheless, since the proposed intervention is for the
22
sole purpose of unsealing the documents in question, the Motion to Unseal is denied, as seen
23
below. There is no other reason for Hanna to be a party to this action.
24
2.
Motion to Unseal
25
Hanna seeks to unseal the expert reports at issue here on the grounds that there is no
26
compelling reason to keep the sealing order in place after settlement. According to Hanna, this
27
Court sealed the expert reports solely for the purpose of furthering settlement negotiations, and in
28
“the interest [of] fostering efficient and effective settlement and resolution of complex litigation. .
-5-
1
.” See Hall v. County of Fresno, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73962, *4 (E.D. Cal. June 8, 2015). Now
2
that the Court has entered the consent decree in Hall and the settlement is finalized, the sealed
3
expert reports have fully served their purpose and should therefore be unsealed. (Doc. 186 at 4).
4
Defendant offers three justifications for maintaining the expert reports under seal: (1) the
5
parties to this action initially created the expert reports with the expectation that they would be
6
kept confidential as a part of settlement negotiations; (2) the initial agreement between the parties
7
jointly requested that the reports be submitted to the Court under seal; and (3) the public policy
8
reasons for maintaining the reports under seal inures to the benefit of the public as a whole.
9
A.
Compelling Reasons Exist to Keep Expert Reports Under Seal
10
Having again considered whether to maintain the expert reports under seal, the Court finds
11
that there continues to be compelling reasons to keep the reports sealed for at least three reasons.
12
First, the Court has already concluded that the need for disclosure here outweighs the public’s
13
need for access to the three expert reports challenged here. (Doc. 123). The passage of four
14
months has not changed the Court’s analysis in that respect.
15
which the expert reports were generated create additional reasons to preserve the documents’
16
confidentiality. Lastly, minimal prejudice either to Hanna or to public policy considerations
17
weighs against disclosure.
Second, the circumstances under
18
In the Ninth Circuit, the decision whether to unseal an item in the record is “one best left
19
to the sound discretion of the trial court, a discretion to be exercised in light of the relevant facts
20
and circumstances of the particular case.” Hagestad v. Tragesser, 49 F.3d 1430, 1434 (9th Cir.
21
1995) (quoting Nixon, 435 U.S. at 599). Courts that consider the common law right of access are
22
instructed to “start with a strong presumption in favor of access to court records.” Foltz v. State
23
Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003). A party seeking to overcome this
24
strong presumption bears the burden of meeting a “compelling reasons” standard, under which
25
the party must “articulate compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings” that
26
“outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure.” Kamakana v.
27
City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178-79 (9th Cir. 2006) (citations omitted). In
28
determining whether the right of access should be overridden, courts should consider “all relevant
-6-
1
factors,” including “the public interest in understanding the judicial process and whether
2
disclosure of the material could result in improper use of the material for scandalous or libelous
3
purposes or infringement upon trade secrets.” Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1135 (citing Hagestad, 49 F.3d at
4
1434). The presumption of access “may be overcome only ‘on the basis of articulable facts
5
known to the court, not on the basis of unsupported hypothesis or conjecture.’” Hagestad, 49 F.3d
6
at 1434 (citations omitted).
7
i.
Court’s Prior Sealing Order
8
In the prior sealing order, the Court weighed the reasons to seal the expert reports against
9
the need for public access to judicial records and found that there were compelling reasons to file
10
the expert reports under seal. (Doc. 123 at 2). The Court recognized that from the beginning of
11
this case, the parties, “rather than take the typical litigation adversarial posture, elected to work
12
cooperatively together to achieve the best results for the jail population, in light of the claims
13
alleged.” See Hall v. County of Fresno, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73962 (E.D. Cal. June 8, 2015).
14
Under these cooperative settlement efforts, the parties jointly selected the experts to provide
15
confidential information to candidly assess deficiencies in the jail system for the purpose of
16
negotiating the settlement, inform the Court of such deficiencies and methods of correction, and
17
to provide a factual framework for the development of the settlement agreement. The Court
18
further noted in its order that these proceedings—which had consumed, quite literally, years of
19
judicial resources—were finally nearing a conclusion after no less than fifteen settlement status
20
conferences. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1213 (9th Cir.
21
2002) (“Applying a strong presumption of access to documents a court has already decided
22
should be shielded from the public would surely undermine, and possibly eviscerate, the broad
23
power of the district court to fashion protective orders.”). Given the Court’s intimate familiarity
24
with the settlement negotiations here, the Court concluded that the cooperative settlement model
25
employed inured to the public benefit and therefore created compelling reasons to file the
26
settlement generated expert reports under seal.
27
compelling reasons for sealing the expert reports at issue here, and Plaintiff has not persuaded the
28
Court that these reasons no longer exist.
-7-
This Court therefore has already found
ii.
1
Cooperative Settlement Negotiations
2
As noted above, a compelling reason to seal the expert reports in this case is predicated on
3
the parties’ agreement to forgo the traditional adversarial system, which typically permits each
4
side to select its own expert witnesses, and instead adopt a cooperative settlement strategy. Here,
5
the jointly selected experts provided confidential information to assist in negotiating the
6
settlement and to provide a factual framework for the development of the settlement agreement.
7
This exposure of complete and candid facts assisted the parties in reaching a settlement in
8
complex and contentious litigation. That strategy also served an additional purpose of promoting
9
a cooperative settlement model by Defendant—a public entity frequently involved in litigation—
10
in subsequent cases.
11
The Court is persuaded that permitting the use of the expert reports against the County
12
here will deter, if not destroy, such cooperative conduct in the future, unnecessarily deplete
13
already taxed public coffers by having public entities litigate such cases rather than settle, and
14
consume substantial judicial resources in complex cases such as this one. Thus, disclosure would
15
cause a disservice to the public which benefits from the cooperative efforts made by the
16
Defendant here. Accordingly, the Court again finds that the cooperative settlement efforts present
17
a compelling reason to maintain the expert reports under seal.
18
Settlement negotiations and communications exchanged are inherently confidential. See
19
e.g., Four in One Co., Inc. v. S.K. Foods, L.P., 2014 WL 4078232 (E.D. Cal 2014). As
20
summarized in the case docket, the Court engaged in at least fifteen status conferences with the
21
parties.
22
difficulties in negotiating a complex settlement.
23
involved the experts’ findings and remedial measures to address alleged deficiencies. Thus, this
24
case is not one where the court has simply “approved” a settlement and ordered the documents
25
“filed under seal” at the parties’ request. Rather, this is a case where the Court was intricately
26
involved in and supervised settlement discussions over two and a half year period, where detailed
27
discussions occurred regarding problems and remedies identified by the expert reports. A strong
28
public interest exists in favor of secrecy of matters discussed by parties during settlement
The purpose of these conferences was for the Court to guide the parties through
-8-
Much of the discussions and negotiations
1
negotiations. This is true whether settlement negotiations are done under the auspices of the court
2
or informally between the parties. The ability to negotiate and settle a case without trial fosters a
3
more efficient, more cost-effective, and significantly less burdened judicial system. Parties must
4
be able to abandon their adversarial tendencies to some degree. The Court, again, finds, in this
5
case, the need to protect the parties’ settlement negotiations outweighs any necessity for
6
disclosure.
7
iii.
Public Policy Considerations
8
As this Court has previously determined the reports should be sealed, and reaffirms the
9
reports should remain sealed, the Court need not readdress whether sealing violates public policy
10
considerations.
11
Nonetheless, to the extent Hanna argues public policy considerations, such as the public’s
12
right to be apprised of a public entity’s malfeasance, the Court, under the circumstances presented
13
here, finds the public benefit of improving the Fresno County Jail through a cooperative process
14
outweighs the need for transparency with respect to the limited expert reports sealed here. There
15
is little concern that the Defendant’s actions leading up to and throughout these proceedings have
16
been concealed from the public. The vast majority of the litigation and subsequent settlement
17
documents in this case have been made publicly available. As a result, the litigation here has not
18
been shrouded in secrecy, but, to the contrary, significant aspects of the settlement agreement
19
required approval by the County Board of Supervisors (See Docs. 71, 73, 76) and the final
20
settlement, terms of the settlement, and detailed remedial plan are filed in the Court’s docket. The
21
County is therefore not seeking to conceal its culpability, but protect a narrow set of documents
22
prepared against its self-interest and for the betterment of the public at large.
23
The need for transparency in this instance therefore must yield to a greater public policy
24
interests served by maintaining the expert reports under seal. Defendant has presented the unique
25
circumstance where the damage that would be caused by making public certain aspects of judicial
26
proceedings is so significant that it must override the public’s interest in being able to freely
27
scrutinize these documents. Therefore, the considerations detailed by Defendant weigh against
28
unsealing the expert reports here, and the Court declines to disturb the prior sealing order.
-9-
1
B. Minimal Prejudice to Hanna
2
Lastly, while the Court could examine prejudice under the good cause standard and not
3
the compelling reasons standard, the Court notes that the sealing here creates little prejudice for
4
Hanna because it does not preclude him from obtaining his own expert reports. See Pintos v. Pac.
5
Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 678-79 (9th Cir. Cal. 2010) (records attached to dispositive motions
6
require the court to apply the compelling reasons standard, whereas records attached to non-
7
dispositive motions require the court to apply the “good cause” standard). Indeed, Hanna argues
8
in his motion to intervene that “had the [Hall parties] not elected to approach settlement through
9
mutually agreed upon experts, they would have used the traditional method of opposing experts
10
who independently conducted the same kind of review, study and analysis of the myriad problems
11
at the Fresno County Jail and the result would likely have been the same.” Along that same
12
reasoning, Hanna is free to retain his own experts, through the discovery process, who will or will
13
not support Hanna’s claims. Further, nothing in the sealing of the expert reports affects Hanna’s
14
ability to inspect the Fresno County Jail. As the Court stated in Foltz, maintaining confidentiality
15
here “does not foreclose independent discovery in any collateral litigation.
16
conceivable policy reason to serve up such information on a silver platter.” Foltz, 331 F.3d at
17
1138.
CONCLUSION
18
For the reasons stated above, Hanna’s motion to intervene and to unseal documents is
19
20
We see no
DENIED, as follows:
1. Hanna’s Motion to Intervene for the limited purpose of filing a Motion to Unseal is
21
hereby DENIED as MOOT;
22
23
///
24
///
25
///
26
///
27
///
28
///
-10-
1
2
2. To the extent Hanna’s motion seeks an order unsealing the expert reports of: (1) Dr.
3
Michael Puisis regarding Fresno County Jail’s medical program, (2) Richard
4
Hayward, Ph.D., regarding Fresno County Jail’s mental health program, and (3) David
5
Rardin, regarding Fresno County Jail’s Operations Review, the motion is DENIED.
6
IT IS SO ORDERED.
7
/s/ Barbara
Dated: December 11, 2015
8
A. McAuliffe
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-11-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?