Knighten v. City of Anderson et al

Filing 14

ORDER TO SEAL signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 10/26/2015 GRANTING that pages 1 and 3 of the Police Report, attached as Exhibit A to Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendants City of Anderson's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 11 ) are hereby REDACTED, (and the Unredacted Version is SEALED). (Krueger, M)

5

JOHN DOUGLAS BARR ............... California State Bar No. 40663
TROY DOUGLAS MUDFORD ..... California State Bar No. 156392
ESTEE LEWIS..................................California State Bar No. 268358
CATHLEEN THERESA BARR ....... California State Bar No. 295538
BARR & MUDFORD, LLP
1824 Court Street/Post Office Box 994390
Redding, California 96099-4390
Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone]

6

Attorneys for Plaintiff

1
2
3
4

7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10
11

GERALD KNIGHTEN,

12

Plaintiff,

13

vs.

14
15
16
17
18

THE CITY OF ANDERSON; THE CITY OF
ANDERSON POLICE
DEPARTMENT, MICHAEL JOHNSON in
his official capacity as Chief of Police for the
City of Anderson Police Department; and
SEAN MILLER, individually and in his
official capacity as a Police Officer with the
City of Anderson Police Department.

19
20

NO. 2:15-CV-01751-TLN-CMK
PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST TO SEAL
THE POLICE REPORT ATTACHED
AS EXHIBIT A TO PLAINTIFF’S
OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT THE
CITY OF ANDERSON, THE CITY OF
ANDERSON POLICE DEPARTMENT,
AND MICHAEL JOHNSON’S MOTION
TO DISMISS; ORDER THERETO
Date : November 5, 2015
Time : 2:00 p.m.
Dept : 2
Judge: Honorable Troy L. Nunley

Defendants.

21
22
23

Plaintiff requests to seal the Police Report authored by Redding Police Department

24

Officer, Edward Gilmette, which is attached as Exhibit A to Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendants

25

City of Anderson’s Motion to Dismiss. (Court Doc. 11.) Plaintiff makes this request because

26

the police report contains the birthdates of plaintiff and the two gentlemen that witnessed the

27

event that resulted in this lawsuit.

28
BARR & MUDFORD
Attorneys at Law
1824 Court Street
Post Office Box 994390
Redding, CA 96099-4390
[phone]

Page 1
Request to Seal Police Report Filed as Exhibit A to Opposition to Dfdts’ Motion to Dismiss 

1

1. Legal Authority

2

The request to seal documents is controlled by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c).

3

The Rule permits the Court to issue orders to “protect a party or person from annoyance,

4

embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense, including . . . requiring that a trade

5
secret or other confidential research, development, or commercial information not be revealed or
6
7
8

be revealed only in a specified way.” Only if good cause exists may the Court seal the
information from public view after balancing “the needs for discovery against the need for

9

confidentiality.’”

10

(quoting Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1213 (9th Cir.

11

2002)). Generally, documents filed in civil cases are presumed to be available to the public.

12

EEOC v. Erection Co., 900 F.2d 168, 170 (9th Cir. 1990); see also Kamakana v. City and County

13

Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. Cal. 2010)

of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir.2006); Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 331

14
F.3d 1122, 1134 (9th Cir.2003). Documents may be sealed only when the compelling reasons
15
16
17

for doing so outweigh the public’s right of access. (EEOC at 170.) In evaluating the request, the
Court considers the “public interest in understanding the judicial process and whether disclosure

18

of the material could result in improper use of the material for scandalous or libelous purposes or

19

infringement upon trade secrets.” Valley Broadcasting Co. v. United States District Court, 798

20

F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1986).

21
22

2. Request To Seal
Plaintiff requests that the Court seal page one and page three of the police report attached

23
as Exhibit A to Plaintiff’s opposition to Defendants City of Anderson’s 12(b)6 Motion to
24
25
26

Dismiss.
Page one and three of the police report contain the birthdates of plaintiff and the two

27

witnesses listed in the police report. Per FRCP 52 and Local Rule 140, all filers must redact

28

dates of birth. Based on this rule, this Court finds that the compelling reasons for sealing dates of

BARR & MUDFORD
Attorneys at Law
1824 Court Street
Post Office Box 994390
Redding, CA 96099-4390
[phone]

Page 2
Request to Seal Police Report Filed as Exhibit A to Opposition to Dfdts’ Motion to Dismiss 

1

birth outweigh the public’s right of access. Plaintiff inadvertently attached the police report

2

without redacting the dates of birth of Plaintiff and of the two witnesses from the police report.

3
4

The redacted police report is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
DATED: October 26, 2015

BARR & MUDFORD, LLP

5
6
7

/s/ CATHLEEN THERESA BARR
JOHN DOUGLAS BARR
CATHLEEN THERESA BARR
Attorneys for Plaintiff

8
9
10
11
12

ORDER
13
14

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that pages 1 and 3 of the Police Report, attached as Exhibit

15

A to Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendants City of Anderson’s Motion to Dismiss (Court Doc. 11)

16

be, and hereby is, redacted.

17
18

DATED: October 26, 2015

19
20

Troy L. Nunley
United States District Judge

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
BARR & MUDFORD
Attorneys at Law
1824 Court Street
Post Office Box 994390
Redding, CA 96099-4390
[phone]

Page 3
Request to Seal Police Report Filed as Exhibit A to Opposition to Dfdts’ Motion to Dismiss