Mack v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation et al

Filing 104

ORDER DENYING 103 Without Prejudice Plaintiff's Request to File Documents Under Seal, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 2/6/2018. (Hall, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14
15
16

)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS AND REHABILIATION, et )
)
al.,
)
Defendants.
JEROME J. MACK,

Case No.: 1:15-cv-01600 JLT
ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE
PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST TO FILE DOCUMENTS
UNDER SEAL
(Doc. 103)

17
Before the Court is the plaintiff’s request to file under seal documents related to the

18
19

defendants’ motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 103) The only explanation for the sealing request

20

is that information at issue was designated as “confidential” during discovery. Unfortunately, this

21

alone is insufficient to justify sealing and, therefore, the request is DENIED without prejudice.

22

I.

23

Legal Authority
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) determines when documents may be sealed. The Rule

24

permits the Court to issue orders to “protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment,

25

oppression, or undue burden or expense, including . . . requiring that a trade secret or other

26

confidential research, development, or commercial information not be revealed or be revealed only in

27

a specified way.” Only if good cause exists may the Court seal the information from public view after

28

balancing “the needs for discovery against the need for confidentiality.’” Pintos v. Pac. Creditors
1

1

Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. Cal. 2010) (quoting Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors

2

Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1213 (9th Cir. 2002)).

3

Generally, documents filed in civil cases are presumed to be available to the public. EEOC v.

4

Erection Co., 900 F.2d 168, 170 (9th Cir. 1990); see also Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu,

5

447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir.2006); Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1134 (9th

6

Cir.2003). The Court may seal documents only when the compelling reasons for doing so outweigh

7

the public’s right of access. EEOC at 170. In evaluating the request, the Court considers the “public

8

interest in understanding the judicial process and whether disclosure of the material could result in

9

improper use of the material for scandalous or libelous purposes or infringement upon trade secrets.”

10

Valley Broadcasting Co. v. United States District Court, 798 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1986).
Notably, this Court’s Local Rule 141 sets forth how a request to seal documents should be

11
12

made. In addition, the legal authority recited here demonstrates that sealing may occur only if good

13

cause is shown. Despite this, the request here provides little discussion why information should be

14

sealed. Instead, the only explanation is that the information was designated as “confidential”1 during

15

the discovery process. (Doc. 103 at 2) Though the Court issued the stipulated protective order, this

16

order did not authorize filings under seal. (Doc. 90 at 6-7) By citing to the Court’s Local Rule 141(e),

17

the protective order indicates only that if the Court allows sealing, the sealed documents would be

18

destroyed.2 Id. at 7. Thus, the Court does not know why the plaintiff3 contends the documents should

19

be sealed and cannot, therefore, find the good cause needed to grant the request.

20

ORDER

21

Based upon the foregoing, the Court ORDERS:

22

1.

Plaintiff’s request to seal (Doc. 103) is DENIED without prejudice. Plaintiff may

23

renew his request for sealing or, if he chooses not to do so, SHALL file unredacted copies of the

24

materials, no later than February 9, 2018. If he chooses to renew his request, he SHALL comply with

25
26
1

27
28

The fact that counsel felt the information should be made confidential is insufficient for the Court to satisfy its duty to
ensure that only where good cause exists should the public be deprived of access to its filings.
2
Because requests to seal almost always are now lodged electronically, generally, the Court does not retain the unredacted
copies and deletes the electronic communication, once the reason for the filing, e.g., a motion or trial, is complete.
3
Notably, the defendants have not responded to the request to seal.

2

1

this Court’s Local Rule 141.

2
3
4
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

February 6, 2018

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3