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)

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