Valdivia, et al v. Schwarzenegger, et al
Filing
1846
ORDER signed by Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 7/3/13 GRANTING 1837 , 1813 , 1832 and 1793 Requests to Seal. Counsel is directed to send approved sealed documents to ApprovedSealed@caed.uscourts.gov.(Dillon, M)
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,
NO. CIV. S-94-671 LKK/GGH
12
Plaintiffs,
13
v.
O R D E R
14
15
EDMUND G. BROWN, JR., Governor of
the State of California, et al.,
Defendants.
16
/
17
18
Presently before the court are four requests to seal documents
19
under Local Rule 141, two filed by plaintiffs (ECF Nos. 1793, 1837)
20
and two by defendants (ECF Nos. 1813, 1832). All of the sealing
21
requests are unopposed.
22
Two protective orders are operative in this action. The
23
September 14, 1999 Order (ECF No. 437) addresses “all Central
24
Files, medical files (including psychiatric files), and Forms
25
1103[.]” (ECF No. 437.) The July 11, 2000 Order (ECF No. 519)
26
addresses
“[a]ll
inmate/parolee
1
personal
information
(i.e.,
1
residential addresses, residential phone numbers, or other such
2
personal information).”
3
Courts have long recognized a “general right to inspect and
4
copy public records and documents, including judicial records and
5
documents.”
6
597 & n.7 (1978) (denying release of “Nixon tapes” that were played
7
in open court and entered into evidence). “Unless a particular
8
court
9
presumption in favor of access' is the starting point.”
Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589,
record
is
one
‘traditionally
kept
secret,’
a
‘strong
Kamakana
10
v. City and Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006)
11
(quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122,
12
1135
13
presumption, a party seeking to seal a judicial record must
14
articulate justifications for sealing that outweigh the public
15
policies favoring disclosure.
(9th
Cir.
2003)).
In
order
to
overcome
this
strong
See id. at 1178–79.
16
Because the public’s interest in non-dispositive motions is
17
relatively low, a party seeking to seal a document attached to a
18
non-dispositive motion need only demonstrate “good cause” to
19
justify sealing. Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678
20
(9th
21
non-dispositive motions because such motions “are often unrelated,
22
or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action”)
23
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
Cir.
2010)
(applying
“good
cause”
standard
to
all
24
The court, having reviewed the parties’ requests to seal,
25
finds that the documents sought to be sealed contain information
26
covered by the terms of the protective orders entered in this case,
2
1
and that the filing of these documents under seal is proper.1
2
Nevertheless,
3
determination if subsequent developments in this case demonstrate
4
that the public interest in reviewing sealed documents outweighs
5
those interests which presently support sealing.
the
court
6
the
right
to
revisit
this
IT IS SO ORDERED.
7
reserves
DATED: July 3, 2013.
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
1
The court initially considered requiring redaction, rather
than sealing, of Exhibits 11.1, 11.2, and 13.3 to the Declaration
of Rhonda Skipper-Dotta. These exhibits consist of visual
demonstrations of the functioning of defendants’ parole management
software. But, as these exhibits contain a significant amount of
what appears to be real parolee data, on further review, the court
concluded that the exhibits, as redacted, would convey very little
useful information to readers. Accordingly, sealing of these
exhibits appears appropriate.
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?