Espinoza v. City of Tracy et al

Filing 71

ORDER signed by Senior Judge William B. Shubb on 4/30/2018 GRANTING 66 Request to Seal Documents filed by R. Leon Churchill, Jr., City of Tracy. (Donati, J)

1
2
3
4
5

Jesse J. Maddox, Bar No. 219091
[e-mail]
Arlin Kachalia, Bar No. 193752
[e-mail]
LIEBERT CASSIDY WHITMORE
A Professional Law Corporation
135 Main Street, 7th Floor
San Francisco, California 94105
Telephone:
415.512.3000
Facsimile:
415.856.0306

6
7

Attorneys for Defendants CITY OF TRACY and R. LEON
CHURCHILL, JR

8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Liebert Cassidy Whitmore
A Professional Law Corporation
135 Main Street, 7th Floor
San Francisco, California 94105

11

JUAN ESPINOZA,

12
13
14
15

Case No.: 2:15-cv-00751-WBS-KJN
Plaintiff,

Complaint Filed: April 6, 2015
FAC Filed: December 5, 2016

v.
CITY OF TRACY, CHIEF OF POLICE
GARY HAMPTON, R. LEON
CHURCHILL, JR., AND DOES 1
through 40, inclusive,

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’
REQUEST TO SEAL DOCUMENTS
(LOCAL RULE 141)

16
Defendants.
17

Trial Date:
Final Pretrial Conf.:
Discovery Cut-Off:

August 7, 2018
June 18, 2018
March 15, 2018

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

The Court has considered Defendants CITY OF TRACY and R. LEON CHURCHILL,
JR.’s (“Defendants”) Request to Seal Documents submitted to the Court on April 16, 2018. This
Court finds compelling reasons for the request and GRANTS the Request.
Defendants seek to seal or redact material from 194 pages of their evidence submitted in
support of their Motion for Summary Judgment. Defendants contend certain documents contain
sensitive and private non-litigant identifying information that should be redacted to protect the
identities of the non-litigants since such information could be used for improper purposes.
“In this circuit, we start with a strong presumption in favor of access to court records. The
common law right of access, however, is not absolute and can be overridden given sufficiently

28
1

30
31

[Proposed] Orderr Granting Defendants’ Request to Seal Documents
8507545.4 TR318-021

1

compelling reasons for doing so.” Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135

2

(9th Cir. 2003) (citations omitted) (discussing factors relevant to “compelling reasons” standard).

3
4
5

Defendants have demonstrated compelling reasons to seal or to redact the documents
bates numbered CONFIDENTIAL0001-CONFIDENTIAL0194.
The documents contain personal identifying information of several third parties. The

6

Court finds compelling reasons to permit Defendants to redact all non-litigant identifying

7

information. The identities of these non-litigant individuals are immaterial to Defendants’ Motion

8

for Summary Judgment. Given that such information lacks any probative value, it cannot further

9

the “public interest in understanding the judicial process.” Kamakana v. City and County of
Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1181 (9th Cir. 2006). Moreover, the dissemination of the non-litigants’

11
Liebert Cassidy Whitmore
A Professional Law Corporation
135 Main Street, 7th Floor
San Francisco, California 94105

10

identities in the public docket may cause them undue embarrassment or damage to their

12

reputations. If disseminated in the public docket, the information may “‘become a vehicle for

13

improper purposes.” Id. at 1179 (quoting Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589,

14

598 (1978)). These interests in favor of redaction outweigh any public interest in the information.

15

Pryor v. City of Clearlake, C 11-0954 CW, 2012 WL 3276992, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 9, 2012)

16

(“Together these three factors—irrelevance, personal identification information and likely

17

embarrassing information about . . . a non-litigant—outweigh the public’s interest in disclosure.”)

18

IT IS hereby ORDERED that Defendants may file the documents bates stamped

19

CONFIDENTIAL0001-CONFIDENTIAL0194 under seal and/or may redact the personal

20

identifying information of non-litigants wherever it appears in the documents bates stamped

21

CONFIDENTIAL0001-CONFIDENTIAL0194. Persons entitled to access the confidential

22

documents filed under seal is limited to Plaintiff, Plaintiff’s counsel, Defendants, and Defendants’

23

counsel, officers and employees of the Court, and individuals who have signed the Stipulated

24

Protective Order. (ECF No. 58)

25

The sealing order shall remain in place for purposes of Defendants’ Motion for Summary

26

Judgment. Depositions, as lodged with the court, shall be returned to Defendants, through their

27

counsel. This Order shall not preclude Defendants from introducing these documents, unredacted

28

or unsealed, separately for purposes of trial.
2

30
31

[Proposed] Orderr Granting Defendants’ Request to Seal Documents
8507545.4 TR318-021

1
2

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 30, 2018

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

Liebert Cassidy Whitmore
A Professional Law Corporation
135 Main Street, 7th Floor
San Francisco, California 94105

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3

30
31

[Proposed] Orderr Granting Defendants’ Request to Seal Documents
8507545.4 TR318-021