Huerta v. County of Tulare, et al

Filing 109

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART 106 Joint Request to Seal signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 03/07/2022. Seven-Day Deadline. (Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

RAMIRO HUERTA,

12

Case No. 1:17-cv-01446-EPG

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

COUNTY OF TULARE, et al.,

15

Defendants.

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART JOINT REQUEST TO
SEAL
(ECF Nos. 106)

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

Before the Court is the parties’ joint request to seal documents. (ECF No. 106). For the
following reasons, the Court will grant the request in part and deny it in part. Specifically, the
Court will order the Clerk of Court to seal the documents previously filed on the docket, direct
Plaintiff to refile the documents with appropriate redactions, and will otherwise deny the request
to seal.
I.

BACKGROUND
On November 19, 2021, Defendants County of Tulare, Tulare County Sheriff, Ronald

24

Smith, Michael Coldren, James Dillon, Laura Torres-Salcido, Hector Hernandez, Salvador Ceja

25

(collectively, “Defendants”) filed a motion for sanctions based on allegations that Plaintiff

26

Ramiro Huerta’s (“Plaintiff”) counsel violated this Court’s protective order. (ECF No. 92.)

27

Plaintiff filed an opposition on January 28, 2022. (ECF No. 98.) Defendants filed a reply on

28

February 11, 2021. (ECF No. 99.)
1

1

Defendants’ reply argued that the exhibits filed in support of Plaintiff’s opposition

2

violated Eastern District Local Rule 140’s requirement that personally identifiable information be

3

redacted. (ECF No. 99 at 10.) Specifically, Plaintiff’s exhibits included unredacted crime reports

4

which exposed the full social security numbers, birth dates, Driver’s license numbers, home

5

addresses, and private phone numbers. (Id. at 10-11.)
The Court held a hearing on the motion for sanctions and, in relevant part, ordered the

6
7
8
9

parties to meet and confer regarding sealing of any exhibits submitted in connection with the
motion for sanctions. (ECF No. 100.) On March 4, 2022, the parties filed a stipulation requesting
that the Court seal Exhibits A and C to the Declaration of Matthew D. Owdom filed in support of
Plaintiff’s opposition. (ECF No. 106.)

10
II.
11
12

LEGAL STANDARDS
“Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records

and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City & Cty. of

13

Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435

14

U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). “[J]udicial records are public documents almost by definition, and

15

the public is entitled to access by default.” Id. at 1180. This “federal common law right of access”

16

to court documents generally extends to “all information filed with the court,” and “creates a

17

strong presumption in favor of access to judicial documents which can be overcome only by

18

showing sufficiently important countervailing interests.” Phillips ex. Rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen.

19

Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1212 (9th Cir. 2002) (citations and quotation marks omitted).

20

Accordingly, “[a] party seeking to seal a judicial record then bears the burden of

21

overcoming this strong presumption by meeting the ‘compelling reasons' standard.” Kamakana,

22

447 F.3d at 1178. Under this stringent standard, a court may seal records only when it finds “a

23

compelling reason and articulate[s] the factual basis for its ruling, without relying on hypothesis

24

or conjecture.” Id. at 1179. The court must then “conscientiously balance[ ] the competing

25
26
27

interests of the public and the party who seeks to keep certain judicial records secret.” Id.
(quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003) (alteration
in original) (internal quotation marks omitted). What constitutes a “compelling reason” is “best

28
2

1

left to the sound discretion of the trial court.” Nixon, 435 U.S. at 599.1

2

Local Rule 141 governs requests to seal and requires that the request “set forth the

3

statutory or other authority for sealing, the requested duration, the identity, by name or category,

4

of persons to be permitted access to the documents, and all other relevant information.” E.D. Cal.

5

L.R. 141(b).
Under Local Rule 140(a), counsel is required to omit or, where reference is necessary,

6
7
8

partially redact the following personal data identifiers from all pleadings, documents, and
exhibits:
(i)

9
10

(ii)

11
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)

12
13

Minors' names: In criminal actions, use the minors' initials; in civil actions
use initials when federal or state law require the use of initials, or when the
specific identity of the minor is not necessary to the action or individual
document;
Financial account numbers: Identify the name or type of account and the
financial institution where maintained, but use only the last four numbers
of the account number;
Social Security numbers: Use only the last four numbers;
Dates of birth: Use only the year;
Home addresses in criminal actions only; use only the city and state; and
All other circumstances: Redact when federal law requires redaction.

14
15

E.D. Cal. L.R. 140(a).
III.

16
17

DISCUSSION
Here, the parties seek to file Exhibits A and C to Mr. Owdom’s declaration under seal.

(ECF No. 106; see also ECF No. 98-1.) The parties’ stipulation does not state the basis for

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

The Ninth Circuit has also “carved out an exception,” Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1135, to the strong preference for public
access for sealed materials attached to a discovery motion unrelated to the merits of a case, see Phillips ex rel. Estates
of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1213–14 (9th Cir.2002). Under this exception, a party need only
satisfy the less exacting “good cause” standard. Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1135. The “good cause” language comes from
Rule 26(c)(1), which governs the issuance of protective orders in the discovery process: “The court may, for good
cause, issue an order to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or
expense....” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). “Applying a strong presumption of access to documents a court has already
decided should be shielded from the public would surely undermine, and possibly eviscerate, the broad power of the
district court to fashion protective orders,” and thereby undermine Rule 26(c). Phillips, 307 F.3d at 1213; see
also Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20, 33 (1984) (explaining that discovery is largely “conducted in
private as a matter of modern practice,” so the public is not presumed to have a right of access to it); Anderson v.
Cryovac, Inc., 805 F.2d 1, 13 (1st Cir.1986) (“There is no tradition of public access to discovery, and requiring a trial
court to scrutinize carefully public claims of access would be incongruous with the goals of the discovery process.”).
In determining whether to apply the presumptive “compelling reasons” standard or the “good cause” exception, the
focus is on “whether the motion is more than tangentially related to the merits of a case.” Ctr. For Auto Safety v.
Chrysler Group, LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2016). Here, the parties do not address which standard applies
to their request to seal. (See ECF No. 106.) However, in light of the nature of the motion and the relief requested, the
Court finds that the motion for sanctions is more than tangentially related to the merits of the case and therefore the
“compelling reasons” standard applies.
1

3

1

sealing, but Defendants’ reply in support of the motion for sanctions explains that these exhibits

2

improperly contain unredacted social security numbers, birth dates, Driver’s license numbers,

3

home addresses, and private phone numbers in violation of Local Rule 140. (ECF No. 99.)
Local Rule 140(a) requires omission or partial redaction of individuals’ social security

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

numbers and birth dates. However, Local Rule 140(a) does not require redaction of home
addresses in civil cases, and does not address redaction of phone numbers or Driver’s licenses.
Neither of the parties has identified any other authority for sealing or redacting this information.
Likewise, the parties have not established that maintaining the document in its entirety under
seal,2 as opposed to redacting the limited information at issue under Local Rule 140(a), is
appropriate. See Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1138 (“We do not see how the presence of a small number of .
. . records that can be redacted with minimal effort constitutes ‘good cause,’ let alone a
compelling reason, . . . to overcome the strong presumption in favor of public access).

12

Thus, in order to balance the strong presumption of public access to court records against

13

the sensitive nature of individuals’ social security numbers and birth dates, the Court will direct

14

the Clerk of Court to seal the copy of Mr. Owdom’s declaration that was previously filed on the

15

docket. (See ECF No. 98-1.) The Court will further order Plaintiff to refile Mr. Owdom’s

16

declaration on the docket with social security numbers and birth dates redacted pursuant to Local

17

Rule 140(a)3 and will otherwise deny the parties’ request to seal.

18

IV.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

19

In light of the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

20

1. The parties’ stipulated request to seal (ECF No. 106) is GRANTED IN PART AND
DENIED IN PART;

21

2. The Clerk of Court is directed to seal the Declaration of Matthew Owdom at Docket

22

No. 98-1; and

23
24
25
26
27
28

Notably, although the parties request that only Exhibits A and C be sealed, Plaintiff filed Mr. Owdom’s declaration
and exhibits as a singular document and did not separately file the exhibits on the docket. The Court cannot seal
portions of filings on the docket and can only seal documents in their entirety.
2

Local Rule 140(a)(vi) permits redaction when required by federal law. The Court notes that, although the parties’
stipulation did not identify any basis for redacting home addresses, phone numbers, or Driver’s license numbers, if
this information is required to be redacted under federal law then it may be redacted consistent with Local Rule
140(a)(vi). However, no other redactions beyond those enumerated in Local Rule 140(a) are permitted absent a court
order. See E.D. Cal. L.R. 140(b).
3

4

1

3. Within seven (7) days of entry of this order, Plaintiff shall refile Mr. Owdom’s
declaration with personal data identifiers redacted consistent with Local Rule 140(a).

2
3
4
5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

March 7, 2022

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5