Phillips-Kerley v. City of Fresno Fire Department, et al.

Filing 31

ORDER GRANTING IN PART and DENYING IN PART Request to File Documents Under Seal 30 , signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 12/6/2018: 10-Day Deadline. (Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DAVID PHILLIPS-KERLEY,

12
13
14
15

Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF FRESNO, et al.,

No. 1:18-cv-00438 AWI-BAM
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART REQUEST TO FILE
DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL
(Doc. 30)

Defendants.

16
17
18

Currently before the Court is the request of Steve Whitworth, counsel for Plaintiff David

19

Phillips-Kerley, pursuant to Local Rule 141, to file under seal the following documents: (1) Notice

20

and Motion of Steve Whitworth to Withdraw as Attorney of Record for Plaintiff; (2) Counsel’s

21

supporting declaration; (3) the Request to Seal Documents with its proposed order; and (4) any

22

response filed by Plaintiff to the motion to withdraw. (Doc. No. 30). No timely opposition to the

23

request has been filed pursuant to Local Rule 141. For the reasons that follow, Counsel’s request

24

for filing under seal is granted in part and denied in part.

25

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

26

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

27

447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597

28
1

1

& n.7 (1978)). “[J]udicial records are public documents almost by definition, and the public is

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

govern whether documents should be sealed: a “compelling reasons” standard, which applies to

8

dispositive motions, and a “good cause” standard, which applies to non-dispositive discovery type

9

motions. Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179; see also Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass'n, 605 F.3d 665, 677-

10

78 (9th Cir. 2010). The “good cause” standard, which is applicable here, presents a lower burden

11

for the party wishing to seal documents. Pintos, 605 F.3d at 678. Courts determine whether good

12

cause exists to protect the information from being disclosed to the public by “balancing the needs

13

for discovery against the need for confidentiality.” Id. (quoting Phillips, 307 F.3d at 1213).

14

Counsel contends that there is good cause to seal the documents at issue because “the

15

Declaration of Steve Whitworth in support of the Motion to Withdraw as Counsel contains

16

communications between the attorney and his client” and “it is requested that any information that

17

is revealed which constitutes communications between the client and his attorney be under seal and

18

not be available to the opposing party.” (Doc. No. 30 at 2).

19

Having considered the documents at issue, which contain confidential communications

20

between counsel and his client, and in the absence of any objection, the Court concludes that

21

counsel has sufficiently shown good cause for filing the documents under seal. However, the Court

22

will require counsel to file a copy of the Notice and Motion of Steve Whitworth to Withdraw as

23

Attorney of Record for Plaintiff on the docket with all confidential information redacted. The

24

supporting declaration will be filed under seal.

25
26
27
28

Accordingly, good cause being shown, Counsel’s request to seal is HEREBY GRANTED
IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as follows:
1.

Counsel’s request to file the Notice and Motion of Steve Whitworth to Withdraw as

Attorney of Record for Plaintiff is granted in part and denied in part. The notice and motion shall
2

1

be filed under seal. However, within ten (10) days from the date of this order, counsel shall file on

2

the docket only the Notice and Motion of Steve Whitworth to Withdraw as Attorney of Record for

3

Plaintiff with all confidential information redacted.

4

2.

Counsel’s request to file the remaining documents under seal is granted. The Court

5

orders that the following unredacted materials be filed and maintained under seal: (a) Notice and

6

Motion of Steve Whitworth to Withdraw as Attorney of Record for Plaintiff; (b) Declaration of

7

Steve Whitworth in Support of Motion to Withdraw as Attorney of Record for Plaintiff; (c) Request

8

to Seal Documents and Proposed Order; and (d) any response to the motion submitted by Plaintiff;

9
10

3.

Counsel shall comply with Local Rule 141 regarding disposition of documents for

sealing.

11
12
13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Barbara

December 6, 2018

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3