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 [e-mail].(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