De Leon v. Allison et al

Filing 39

ORDER Granting Defendants' 37 Request to Redact Portions of Two Documents to be Submitted in Support of their Motion for Summary Judgment, signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 8/6/15. (Verduzco, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14

15

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

JESUS DE LEON,
Plaintiff,
v.
KATHLEEN ALLISON, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17
18

Case No.: 1:13-cv-00257-AWI-SAB (PC)
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ REQUEST
TO REDACT PORTIONS OF TWO DOCUMENTS
TO BE SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF THEIR
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
[ECF No. 37]

Plaintiff Jesus DeLeon is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

19

I.

20

RELEVANT BACKGROUND

21

On August 5, 2015, Defendants filed a request to redact portions of two documents to be filed

22

in support of their motion for summary judgment, currently due August 6, 2015. Defendants contend

23

these documents are needed to defend against Plaintiff’s claims, but they cannot be filed in their

24

current state due to the highly sensitive information contained within, the disclosure of which would

25

endanger State prisoners and prison staff.

26

This action is proceeding on Plaintiff’s claims that Defendants violated his Eighth Amendment

27

rights by suspending his outdoor exercise privileges during modified programming (from June 2009 to

28
1

1

March 2011), and Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment equal-protection rights were violated by placing

2

him on a modified program based solely on Plaintiff’s race as a Hispanic. (ECF No. 13.)

3

II.

4

DISCUSSION

5

Local Rule 140 provides that parties are not allowed to file redacted documents “unless the

6

Court has authorized the redaction.” Local Rule 140(b). If the Court authorizes any redactions, the

7

parties are allowed to file a reference list under seal that identifies each item of redacted information

8

along with appropriate identifiers, so that the parties can accurately refer to the redacted entries

9

throughout the litigation. Local Rule 140(c).

10

There is a presumption in favor of access to court records. Phillips v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307

11

F.3d 1206, 1210 (9th Cir. 2002). However, “access to judicial records is not absolute.” Kamakana v.

12

City and Cnty. Of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). Public access may be denied where

13

the court determines that court records may be used for an improper purpose. Nixon v. Warner

14

Comm’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978). In evaluating the party’s request to seal judicial records,

15

district courts should weigh “the interests advanced by the parties in light of the public interest and the

16

duty of the courts.” Hagestad v. Tragesser, 49 F.3d 1430, 1434 (9th Cir. 1995) (quotation omitted).

17

The Supreme Court has noted the decision to seal documents is “one best left to the sound discretion

18

of the trial court, a discretion to be exercised in light of the relevant facts and circumstances of the

19

particular case.” Nixon, 435 U.S. at 599. In consideration of the relevant factors, the district court

20

must determine if a compelling reason exists and provide a factual basis for such finding. Hagestad,

21

49 F.3d at 1434.

22

Defendants submit that in June 2009, several inmates were involved in a series of coordinated

23

riots involving members of rival gangs. Thereafter, the Warden at the California Substance Abuse and

24

Treatment Facility “placed all inmates on Facility C on a modified program immediately, pending the

25

outcome of an investigation into the incident.” (ECF No. 37, Mot. at 3:11-12.) Captain F. Vasquez

26

declares that from June 2006 to April 2011, he maintained a chronology of significant events relating

27

to the modified program at issue in this action. (Id. ¶ 6.) After a lengthy investigation, Captain

28

Vasquez drafted two memoranda, dated August 6, 2010, and April 3, 2011, which were sent to the
2

1

Warden, and contained significant information relating to the investigation of the riots. (ECF No. 37-

2

1, Declaration of F. Vasquez ¶¶ 3, 7-8.) The memoranda contained approximately 151 and 111

3

separate event entries, respectively. (Id. ¶¶ 7-8.) Vasquez declares that the majority of the entries can

4

be publicly disclosed without harm. (Id. ¶ 10.) However, many entries contain sensitive information,

5

the disclosure of which would endanger California prisoners and prison staff. (Id.) Specifically,

6

several entries identify State inmates by name and California Department of Corrections and

7

Rehabilitation number, and others do not identify any inmates by name, but contain enough

8

information to allow an informed prisoner to deduce the identity of the unnamed inmate. (Id.) In

9

addition, some entries reveal critical investigative techniques that would be compromised if publicly

10

known. (Id.) Other entries reveal information learned from confidential informants, and from inmate

11

“kites” that were intercepted by prison staff. (Id.) Further, some entries contain inflammatory

12

language that, if publicly known, could further aggravate and deepen the tensions between rival prison

13

gangs and disruptive groups in California’s correctional institutions. (Id.)

14

Having carefully balanced the public’s presumptive right of access to courts records with the

15

competing interests of inmate and staff safety in California prisons, the Court finds that based on the

16

declaration of F. Vasquez, Defendants’ motion shall be granted.

17

III.

18

ORDER

19

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants are allowed to file the

20

August 6, 2010, and April 13, 2011, memoranda authored by F. Vasquez to K. Allison in redacted

21

form.

22
23

IT IS SO ORDERED.

24

Dated:

25

August 6, 2015
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

26
27
28
3