A.W. v. Tehachapi Unified School District

Filing 21

ORDER GRANTING 20 Request to File Administrative Record Under Seal, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 5/2/2018. (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

A.W. (A minor, by and through his parent and )
guardian ad litem, AMY WRIGHT)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
TEHACHAPI UNIFIED SCHOOL
)
DISTRICT, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.

Case No.: 1:17-cv-00854 DAD JLT
ORDER GRANTING REQUEST TO FILE
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD UNDER SEAL
(Doc. 20)

17

This action arises under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act. (Doc. 1)

18

The plaintiff seeks to have the Court file the administrative record under seal. (Doc. 20) It is

19

apparent that redaction of the record for personal identifiers is likely to be ineffective due to the

20

number of redactions necessary and the number of pages in the record. The record contains confidential

21

medical, psychological and educational information related to the child and other documents which

22

bear on these issues and which are sensitive and personal. If the record is not sealed, the child’s

23

identity will be easily identified through other information that Local Rule 140(a) does not permit to be

24

redacted. In addition, the Family Education Rights and Privacy Act provides for the protection of the

25

child’s and his family’s privacy interests.

26

The request to seal documents is controlled by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). The Rule

27

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

28

oppression, or undue burden or expense, including . . . requiring that a trade secret or other confidential
1

1

research, development, or commercial information not be revealed or be revealed only in a specified

2

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

3

“the needs for discovery against the need for confidentiality.’” Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d

4

665, 678 (9th Cir. Cal. 2010) (quoting Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d

5

1206, 1213 (9th Cir. 2002)).
Presumptively, documents filed in civil cases are to be available to the public. EEOC v.

6
7

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

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

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

12

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

13

Valley Broadcasting Co. v. United States District Court, 798 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1986).
As noted above, the plaintiff seeks to seal documents that list the child’s name and other

14
15

identifiers. The record has this information listed throughout making redaction impractical. The

16

information contained in the record is highly sensitive and is deserving of confidentiality. Moreover,

17

the parties jointly agree that the record should be filed under seal.1 Thus, the Court finds a compelling

18

need for the information contained in the record to remain private.
ORDER

19
20

Based upon the foregoing, the Court ORDERS:

21

1.

The request to file the administrative record under seal (Doc. 23) is GRANTED;

22

2.

No later than May 9, 2018, Plaintiff SHALL e-mail the administrative record to

23

[e-mail] to allow the Clerk of the Court to file it under SEAL. Each

24

document included in the administrative record must be submitted in PDF format. No file submitted

25

for sealing may exceed 10MB. Thus, as necessary, the administrative record may be broken up into

26
27
28

1

The parties are advised that this order does not preclude the Court from issuing orders on the public docket which
discusses information contained in the sealed administrative record. On the other hand, the Court may issue orders
under seal temporarily and give the parties an opportunity to recommend redactions for the public version of the order.
In this event, failing to recommend redactions may result in the Court docketing the full order, which would open the
confidential information public review.

2

1

files not exceeding 10 MB.

2
3
4
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

May 2, 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