Valdivia, et al v. Schwarzenegger, et al

Filing 1691

ORDER signed by Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 9/7/2011 ORDERING that Pltf's 1687 Request to Seal Document is tentatively GRANTED. The court will revisit whether these documents should be permanently sealed at a later time. (Zignago, K.)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 11 JERRY VALDIVIA, ALFRED YANCY, and HOSSIE WELCH, on their own behalf and on behalf of the class of all persons similarly situated, 12 NO. CIV. S-94-671 LKK/GGH Plaintiffs, 13 v. O R D E R 14 15 16 EDMUND G. BROWN, JR., Governor of the State of California, et al., Defendants. / 17 18 On August 31, 2011, plaintiffs filed a Notice of Request to 19 Seal Documents, ECF No. 1687. In the request, plaintiffs request 20 that the following documents be filed under seal: Declaration of 21 Ernest Galvan In Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion to Enforce 22 Injunction and Prohibit Implementation of § 5.3 of Proposition 9 23 and the accompanying Exhibits A-G, which consist of CDCR forms 24 pertaining to the identification of individual parolees’ 25 disabilities and effective communications needs and 26 accommodations provided to parolees in the revocation process. 1 1 Plaintiffs contend that the documents include confidential 2 information identifying inmates. Plaintiffs have concurrently 3 filed redacted copies of the documents. 4 When a party seeks to seal a document that is part of the 5 judicial record, it must show “compelling reasons” for doing so. 6 Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 7 2010). See also Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 8 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006); Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. 9 Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003). “A party seeking to 10 seal judicial records must show that ‘compelling reasons 11 supported by specific factual findings . . . outweigh the 12 general history of access and the public policies favoring 13 disclosure.’” Pintos, id. (quoting Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178). 14 A lower, ‘good cause’ standard is applied when a party 15 seeks to seal non-dispositive motions and discovery documents 16 attached to them. “The public’s interest in accessing 17 dispositive materials does not apply with equal force to non- 18 dispositive materials. In light of the weaker public interest in 19 non-dispositive materials, we apply the ‘good cause’ standard 20 when parties wish to keep them under seal.” Pintos, 605 F.3d at 21 678. redacted copies of the documents. 22 For the foregoing reasons, the Court tentatively GRANTS 23 plaintiffs’ application. Plaintiffs are cautioned, however, that 24 this sealing is tentative. Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1186. The court 25 will revisit whether these documents should be permanently 26 sealed at a later time, when it is possible to perform the fact 2 1 specific analysis required by Foltz. 2 IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 DATED: September 7, 2011. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?