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.)
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?