F. v. Ripon Unified School District

Filing 13

ORDER signed by Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 8/7/2012 DENYING the Request to Seal connected to 11 Notice of Request to Seal Document(s) pursuant to L.R. 141; DIRECTING the Clerk of Court to file Plaintiff's Request to Seal Documents on the public docket. (Michel, G)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

Z.F., by and through his Guardian Ad Litem
MARY ANN FIEDLER; and MARY ANN
FEIDLER,
Plaintiffs,

12
13

No. CIV S-11-2741 KJM-GGH

vs.

14

RIPON UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT,

15

Defendant.
/

16
17

ORDER

This matter is before the court on plaintiffs’ request to seal the administrative

18

record of Ripon Unified School District v. Z.F., et al., number 2011030842, convened from May

19

17-19, because they reference the name of a minor child. (Request to Seal connected to ECF

20

11.) This request is connected to plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment. (ECF 12.) For the

21

following reasons, this request is denied.

22

There is a presumption in favor of public access to court records. See Phillips v.

23

Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210 (9th Cir. 2002). However, “access to judicial records is

24

not absolute.” Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006).

25

“[I]f the court decides to seal certain judicial records [in connection with a dispositive motion

26

and after conscientiously balancing the competing interests of the public and the party who seeks
1

1

to keep certain judicial records secret], it must ‘base its decision on a compelling reason and

2

articulate the factual basis for its ruling, without relying on hypothesis or conjecture.’” Id. at

3

1179 (quoting Hagestad v. Tragesser, 49 F.3d 1430, 1434 (9th Cir. 1995)). “In general,

4

‘compelling reasons’ sufficient to outweigh the public’s interest in disclosure and justify sealing

5

court records exist when such ‘court files might become a vehicle for improper purposes,’ such

6

as the use of records to gratify private spite, promote public scandal, circulate libelous

7

statements, or release trade secrets.” Id. (quoting Nixon v. Warner Communs., Inc., 435 U.S.

8

589, 589 (1978)).

9

Plaintiffs have failed to show compelling reasons for sealing the above-referenced

10

administrative record. Indeed, Local Rule 140(a)(i) specifically provides that in circumstances

11

such as these the minor’s name shall be redacted. Accordingly, plaintiffs shall file the

12

administrative record on the public docket with the minor’s name replaced with the minor’s

13

initials and any other identifying information specified in Local Rule 140(a) redacted.

14
15
16
17

The Clerk of the Court is directed to file Plaintiff’s Request to Seal Documents
dated July 24, 2012, on the public docket.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: August 7, 2012.

18

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2