Soga v. County of Nevada et al

Filing 36

ORDER signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 3/21/16 ORDERING that defendants' motion to seal and redact is DENIED in full. To the extent plaintiff relies on documents covered by defendants motion, she may file these on the public docket within seven (7) days. (Becknal, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

KATHLEEN SOGA,

12
13
14
15

No. 2:14-cv-01084-KJM-KJN

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

COUNTY OF NEVADA, et al,
Defendants.

16
17
18

On December 3, 2015, the County of Nevada and Rolf Kleinhans (collectively

19

“Nevada County” or “Defendants”) filed a request to seal several documents they produced

20

during discovery. Req., ECF No. 18-1. Defendants’ request anticipated plaintiff’s referencing

21

some or all of these documents in opposition to defendants’ pending motion for summary

22

judgment. Id. Plaintiff has not opposed defendants’ request. Schaffer Decl. 2–3, ECF No. 19.

23

Plaintiff believes, however, it will be unworkable to redact her references to sealed documents,

24

because plaintiff has relied heavily in response to defendants’ motion on documents covered by

25

the sealing request. Id. at 3. Instead, in the event the court grants defendants’ request, plaintiff

26

agrees to file the documents she has referenced under seal. Id.

27
28

After reviewing Nevada County’s request and the documents it covers, the court
DENIES the request to seal.
1

1

I.

2

BACKGROUND
On May 1, 2014, plaintiff Kathleen Soga filed a complaint against the County of

3

Nevada and Rolf Kleinhans. ECF No. 1. Kleinhans is the Chief Fiscal and Administrative

4

Officer of the Nevada County Sheriff’s Department. Id. Soga asserts claims for (1) sexual

5

harassment in violation of Title VII and the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”);

6

(2) retaliation in violation of Title VII and FEHA; and (3) retaliation in violation of California

7

Labor Code section 1102.5. Id. On November 16, 2015, Nevada County filed its motion for

8

summary judgment. ECF No. 17. It requests the following documents be sealed (1) Human

9

Resources Report of Findings authored by Nancy Haffey (“Exhibit E”); (2) letter dated April 25,

10

2013 from the County of Nevada to Rolf Kleinhans (“Exhibit F”); (3) deposition of Joseph

11

Salivar related to matters concerning Kleinhans (“Exhibit G”); (4) transcripts of the County of

12

Nevada’s confidential witness interviews of Janet Breneman (“Exhibit H”); and (5) a transcript of

13

the County of Nevada’s confidential witness interview of Jeff Pettitt (“Exhibit I”).

14

II.

15

LEGAL STANDARD
The common-law “right to inspect and copy judicial records is not absolute.”

16

Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978). A litigant may request court records

17

be sealed or redacted. See id. (listing traditional examples). Courts faced with requests to seal or

18

redact begin “with a strong presumption favor of access to court records.” Foltz v. State Farm

19

Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003). A party seeking to seal a judicial

20

record in support of a dipositive motion bears the burden of overcoming this strong presumption

21

by meeting the “compelling reasons” standard. Id. at 1135–36; Kamakana v. City & Cty. of

22

Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). Specifically, the party seeking to seal or redact a

23

document bears the burden of “articulat[ing] compelling reasons supported by specific factual

24

findings that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure,

25

such as the public interest in understanding the judicial process.” Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1135;

26

Hagestad v. Tragesser, 49 F.3d 1430, 1434 (9th Cir. 1995). The “compelling reasons” standard

27

applies even if the dispositive motion, such as a motion to dismiss or its attachments, were

28

previously filed under seal or protective order. Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179.
2

1

“Compelling reasons” can include the need to avoid “private spite,” “public

2

scandal,” and to prevent a court’s records from becoming “reservoirs of libelous statement for

3

press consumption,” or “sources of business information that might harm a litigant’s competitive

4

standing.” Nixon, 435 U.S. at 589 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). Hypothetical

5

or conjectural harm is not a compelling reason. Hagestad, 49 F.3d at 1434. The mere fact that

6

the production of records may lead to a litigant's embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to

7

further litigation will not, without more, compel the court to seal its records. Foltz, 331 F.3d at

8

1136; Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179. A party’s failure to meet its burden means that the default

9

posture of public access prevails. Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1182.

10

III.

DISCUSSION

11

Here, Nevada County argues the documents it seeks to have sealed are covered by

12

the parties’ discovery protective order. Req. at 1. But as this court has articulated in its

13

scheduling order, “protective orders . . . shall not govern the filing of sealed or redacted

14

documents on the public docket.” ECF No. 12; see also Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179.

15

Defendants make additional arguments, addressed below.

16

A.

Human Resources Report of Findings

17

Defendants argue the Human Resources Report of Findings authored by Nancy

18

Haffey, related to plaintiff’s complaint of sexual harassment (“Exhibit E”), “has no bearing on

19

[p]laintiff’s claims and will only serve to scandal[ize] individuals who provided information with

20

an expectation of privacy.” ECF No. 18-1.

21

This reason given in support of sealing is general and conclusory. It does not state

22

which individuals will be adversely affected by disclosure. Defendants do not explain the

23

foundation for the unnamed persons’ expectations of privacy. Because “hypothetical or

24

conjectural harm are not compelling reasons,” the court will not seal a document based on

25

unsupported assertions of privacy expectations. Hagestad, 49 F.3d at 1434.

26

Much of the information in the document is directly related to Ms. Soga’s claims;

27

it contains much of the same information provided in the complaint filed in this action, a public

28

document not subject to seal. The public access to the information undermines the position that
3

1

the same information in a different document warrants a court-ordered seal. See Kamakana, 447

2

F.3d at 1182 (denying party’s request to seal because information in documents was already

3

public).

4

The court notes several redactions have been made in the documents covered by

5

the sealing request. The redactions themselves do not appear to comply with Local Rule 140, and

6

without further comment are not approved.

7

As to the document currently before the court, the request to seal this exhibit is

8

DENIED.

9

B.

10

Letter to Rolf Kleinhans regarding Administrative Leave
Defendants request sealing of an April 25, 2013 letter from the County of Nevada

11

to Rolf Kleinhans regarding administrative leave (Exhibit F). They argue the letter contains

12

confidential disciplinary information related to Kleinhans. ECF No. 18-1. They also argue

13

plaintiff seeks disclosure of this letter to attack Kleinhans’ character. Id.

14

Defendants do not articulate why or how Kleinhans’ character will suffer more by

15

virtue of the letter’s publication, given that this case already is pending against him for sexual

16

harassment. The letter states that Kleinhans is being placed on paid administrative leave. It does

17

not say anything about the reasons motivating the leave. The fact of leave is already a matter of

18

public record. See Compl. ¶ 39, ECF No. 1 (“He had been put on administrative leave pending

19

the investigation.”).

20
21
22

The request to seal this document is DENIED.
C.

Deposition of Joseph Salivar
Defendants also request to seal the transcript of Joseph Salivar’s deposition

23

(“Exhibit G”). Defendants argue disclosure would “potentially affect” Salivar’s reputation and

24

has no bearing on the public interest in this case. ECF No. 18.

25

Defendants’ conclusory arguments do not rise to the level of “compelling reasons”

26

sufficient to overcome the presumption of the need for public access to court documents. Foltz,

27

331 F.3d at 1138.

28

Defendants’ request here as well is DENIED.
4

1

D.

2

Transcripts of the County of Nevada’s Witness Interviews of Janet Breneman
Defendants request to seal several transcripts of interviews of Janet Breneman

3

(“Exhibit H”), arguing the interviews will “potentially affect her reputation” and have no bearing

4

on the outcome of the case. Defendants again do not explain how the interviewd will affect

5

Ms. Breneman’s reputation. Additionally, the interviews have a direct bearing on the case, for

6

Breneman describes her interactions with Kleinhans as well as interactions between Kleinhans

7

and Ms. Soga.

8

This request to seal is DENIED.

9

E.

Transcript of the County of Nevada’s Witness Interview of Captain Jeff Pettitt

10

Defendants request to seal the transcript of Jeff Pettitt’s interview, arguing here as

11

well, that disclosure will “potentially affect his reputation and ha[s] no bearing on the outcome of

12

this case.” ECF No. 18-1. Again, defendants articulate no more than conclusory statements.

13

Additionally, the interview could have a bearing on the outcome of the case, as Pettitt was the

14

person to serve Kleinhans with his paid administrative leave letter.

15

This request to seal is DENIED.

16

F.

17

Redaction Requests—Plaintiff’s Documents in Support of Opposition
Defendants request the court order plaintiff to redact several documents. ECF

18

No. 18-1. These documents include (1) plaintiff’s separate statement of material facts; and

19

(2) plaintiff’s memorandum of points and authorities. Id. Defendants request the documents be

20

redacted to the extent they refer to Exhibits E through I, listed above. Id.

21

Because the court has denied all of defendants’ requests to seal the exhibits, the

22

requests to redact also are DENIED.

23

/////

24

/////

25

/////

26

/////

27

/////

28

/////
5

1
2
3

IV.

CONCLUSION
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendants’ motion to seal and redact is DENIED

4

in full. To the extent plaintiff relies on documents covered by defendants’ motion, she may file

5

these on the public docket within seven (7) days.

6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: March 21, 2016.

8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6