Perez v. City of Roseville, et al

Filing 46

ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 4/30/15 ORDERING that Plaintiff's 45 Notice of Request to Seal Document(s) is DENIED. (Mena-Sanchez, L)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 JANELLE PEREZ, 8 Plaintiff, 9 10 11 12 13 No. 2:13-cv-02150-GEB-DAD v. ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S SEALING REQUEST CITY OF ROSEVILLE; ROSEVILLE POLICE DEPARTMENT; CHIEF DANIEL HAHN, an individual; CAPTAIN STEPHAN MOORE, an individual; and LIEUTENANT CAL WALSTAD, an individual; Defendants. 14 15 16 On April 29, 2015, Plaintiff submitted for in camera 17 consideration a Request to Seal Documents, a proposed sealing 18 order, 19 Plaintiff references the documents requested to be sealed in a 20 publicly 21 “[a]dditional 22 [a]dditional excerpts from the Deposition of Stefan Moore; [and] 23 Doe 24 1077-1134‟.” 25 (organizational lettering omitted).) Plaintiff desires to use the 26 referenced documents in support of her opposition to Defendants‟ 27 pending summary judgment motion and argues in support of her 28 sealing request as follows: and #3‟s seventy filed pages Notice excerpts field of from training (Pl.‟s of documents Request the Req. 1 Seal Deposition evaluations, Notice to sought of to 2:1-4, sealed. Documents Daniel specifically, Seal be as Hahn; „Roseville ECF No. 45 1 6 [Plaintiff‟s] documents . . . contain personnel and training information of current and former City of Roseville Personnel. These individuals have a privacy interest in their personnel records, which are confidential and shielded from disclosure under California state law, as well as the federal common law official information privilege. Pursuant to such, the privacy rights of these individuals, and their records, outweigh public disclosure. 7 (Id. at 1:24-28.) Plaintiff further argues in her sealing request 8 that “[t]here is no interest in public disclosure here, as none 9 of the affected individuals are parties or otherwise involved in 2 3 4 5 10 the instant lawsuit[,]” 11 [referenced] records is that they evidence examples of when other 12 male 13 (Pl.‟s Req. Seal 2:28-3:3.) officers were and treated “[t]he more only favorably relevance than of the [P]laintiff.” This sealing request is overbroad since Plaintiff has 14 15 not shown why targeted 16 pseudonyms, would not adequately protect the privacy interests of 17 each 18 1412RSM, 19 (indicating that a privacy interest can be addressed “not only by 20 redacting . . . names, but also by replacing those names with 21 pseudonyms” where the need for anonymity has been shown). Because 22 of the strong presumption of access to [court] records, . . . 23 [s]ealing orders . . . 24 & Cnty. of S.F., No. 10-16696, 2011 WL 2419868, at *21 (9th Cir. 25 2011). 26 specified with particularity, and there must be [a showing] that 27 the 28 interest.” Id. (internal quotation marks, citation, and emphasis referenced 2007 individual. WL Therefore, [sealing redactions, 4219347, Sims at *2 v. and possibly Lakeside (W.D. Wash. the Sch., Nov. use No. 28, of C062007) must be narrowly tailored.” Perry v. City “any requested] interest is justifying narrowly 2 confined closure to must protect be that 1 omitted). “For this reason, any sealing order must . . . use less 2 restrictive alternatives that do not completely frustrate the 3 public‟s . . . right[] of access.” Id. For example, “[i]n many 4 cases, courts can accommodate [privacy] concerns by redacting 5 sensitive 6 entirely.” United States v. Bus. of Custer Battlefield Museum & 7 Store, 658 F.3d 1188, 1195 n.5 (9th Cir. 2011); see also Press- 8 Enterprise Co. v. Sup. Ct., 464 U.S. 501, 513 (1984) (“Those 9 parts of the transcript reasonably entitled to privacy could have 10 information rather than [sealing] the materials been sealed without such a sweeping order . . . .”). 11 Here, Plaintiff has failed to identify with the 12 required particularity precisely which portion of each document 13 is actually confidential and needs to be redacted. See, e.g., 14 E.D. Cal. R. 140(b) (“When counsel seeks to submit protected 15 information, a[n] . . . order authorizing redaction should be 16 sought,” 17 documents for in camera review). Rather, Plaintiff in essence 18 invites the Court to guess which portion(s) of the referenced 19 documents she opines must redacted to protect privacy interests. 20 and counsel may submit both redacted and unredacted Therefore, Plaintiff has not satisfied the applicable 21 sealing standard, and her sealing request is denied. 22 Dated: April 30, 2015 23 24 25 26 27 28 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?