Mitchell v. Cate et al

Filing 68

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 2/20/2014 ORDERING that defendants' 66 request to seal documents in support of their motion for summary judgment is DENIED as overbroad but without prejudice to renewal within 21 days; pl aintiff may submit an opposition to any amended Notice of Request to Seal within 28 days after service; and plaintiff's deadline to respond to defendants' motion for summary judgment is suspended and will be reset upon resolution of the sealing issue and filing and service fo redacted exhibits, if any. (Yin, K)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

WESLEY MITCHELL,
Plaintiff,

12
13
14

No. 2:11-cv-1240 JAM AC P

v.
MATTHEW L. CATE, et al.,

ORDER

Defendants.

15
16
17

Defendants have filed with their motion for summary judgment in this prisoner civil rights

18

action a request for the court to seal a voluminous amount of documents. E. D. Local Rule 141

19

governs the procedures for the sealing of documents. An order sealing documents issues only

20

where the requesting party has made “the showing required by applicable law.” L.R. 141(a).

21

Under L.R. 141(b), the “Request to Seal Documents” to be submitted by the party seeking the

22

sealing order:

23
24
25
26
27
28

shall set forth the statutory or
other authority for sealing, the
requested duration, the identity, by name or category, of persons to
be perm itted access to the docu ments, and all o ther relev ant
information. If the Request, prop osed order, and/or docum ents
covered by the Request were submitted without service upon one or
more other parties, the Request al so shall set forth the basis for
excluding any party from service. The documents for which sealing
is requested shall be paginated consecutively so that they m ay be
identified without reference to their content, and the total number of
submitted pages shall be stated in the request.
1

1

Defendants have submitted more than 150 pages of documents for in camera review,

2

identifying them broadly as falling into two categories that require confidentiality. Although the

3

documents are paginated, the total number of pages submitted is not specified in the Request to

4

Seal. Exhibit A is identified generally as High Desert State Prison Program Status reports, for

5

which defendants seek sealing because section C of all such reports have been designated

6

confidential by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Exhibit B is

7

described as a single confidential memorandum, dated December 11, 2007, identifying plaintiff as

8

a member of the “Two-Five” gang. With respect to Exhibit A, defendants have failed to describe

9

the basis for their request to seal with the requisite specificity. First, a cursory review indicates

10

that not every document that comprises Exhibit A is, in fact, identified as an HDSP program

11

status report. There are at least 60 pages of documents categorized as memoranda, only some of

12

which are stamped “confidential.” Second, defendants do not demonstrate why, for example,

13

they have not more narrowly proposed redaction of confidential information from documents

14

which might then be publically filed.

15

The Ninth Circuit recognizes “a strong presumption in favor of access to court records.”

16

Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003) (citing Hagestad v.

17

Tragesser, 49 F.3d 1430, 1434 (9th Cir.1995)). Thus, while “access to judicial records is not

18

absolute,” Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir.2006), a party

19

seeking to seal from public view judicial records pertaining to a dispositive motion must meet a

20

“compelling reasons” standard. Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Assn., 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir.

21

2010). To overcome the strong presumption in favor of public access, the moving party must

22

demonstrate that “compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings ... outweigh the

23

general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure.” Id. at 679 (quoting

24

Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178-79 (internal quotation marks/citations omitted)). The “compelling

25

reasons” standard tasks a district court with weighing “relevant factors,”1 basing its decision “on a

26

1

27
28

“[R]elevant factors may include public interest in understanding the judicial process and
whether disclosure of the material could result in improper use of the material for scandalous or
libelous purposes . . . .” E.E.O.C. v. Erection Co., Inc., 900 F.2d 168, 170 (9th Cir. 1990) (citing
Valley Broadcasting v. United States District Court, 798 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir.1986).
2

1

compelling reason,” and articulating “the factual basis for its ruling” absent reliance “on

2

hypothesis or conjecture.” Pintos, at 679 (citing Hagestad, 49 F.3d at 1434).2

3

Defendants will not be granted a blanket sealing order. The Request to Seal provides only

4

generic confidentiality and security rationales for sealing entire classes of documents. Defendants

5

do not explain why redaction would not be adequate to address those concerns. Accordingly, the

6

request to seal is denied without prejudice.

7

If they wish to renew their request, defendants must provide a compelling reason why

8

each document submitted for the court’s review should be filed under seal. Where redaction

9

could obviate the need for sealing, defendants must propose redactions. Defendants will be

10

granted twenty-one days from the date of this order to submit a modified request to seal. A

11

revised set of documents shall be provided for in camera review,3 with proposed redactions.

12

Defendants shall also provide in camera a Request to Seal that identifies on a document-by-

13

document basis (or, as appropriate for sets of closely related documents, by Bates number range)

14

the asserted confidentiality interest or security interest that provides a proffered basis for sealing.

15

Finally, defendants shall file an amended Notice of Request to Seal Documents that complies

16

more fully with L.R. 141(b) and provides sufficient general description of the documents, without

17

revealing information that defendants seek to protect, to provide plaintiff with a meaningful

18

opportunity to object.

19

Plaintiff will be granted twenty-eight days, notwithstanding any contrary provision of L.R.

20

141(c), to submit a response to any amended Notice of Request to Seal. Pursuant to L.R. 141(c),

21

any opposition shall not be filed but shall be mailed to the Clerk in an envelope stating in a

22

prominent manner “Opposition to Request to Seal Documents.”

23

////

24
25
26
27
28

2

A compelling reason might include the necessity to keep “sensitive personal information” to
protect an individual from exposure to harm. Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1184; Nursing Home
Pension Fund v. Oracle Corp., C01-00988 MJJ, 2007 WL 3232267 *2 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 1, 2007).
3

The Notice of Request to Seal inaccurately refers to these documents as having been submitted
under seal. See L.R. 141.
3

1

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

2

1. Defendants’ request to seal documents in support of their motion for summary

3

judgment (ECF No. 66) is denied as overbroad but without prejudice to renewal within twenty-

4

one days as provided above; and

5
6
7

2. Plaintiff may submit an opposition to any amended Notice of Request To Seal within
twenty-eight days after service, as provided above;
3. Good cause appearing, plaintiff’s deadline to respond to defendants’ motion for

8

summary judgment (ECF No. 65) is suspended and will be reset upon resolution of the sealing

9

issue and filing and service of redacted exhibits, if any.

10

DATED: February 20, 2014

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4