Blight v. Manteca et al
Filing
115
ORDER signed by Senior Judge William B. Shubb on 8/18/2017 GRANTING 114 Request to Seal Documents. (Michel, G.)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
----oo0oo----
10
11
JOANNE BLIGHT,
Plaintiff,
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
CIV. NO. 2:15-2513 WBS AC
ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST TO
SEAL
v.
CITY OF MANTECA, a municipal
corporation; Manteca Police
Department Detectives ARMANDO
GARCIA and IAN OSBORN; and
Manteca Police Department
Sergeants PAUL CARMONA and
CHRIS MRAZ;
Defendants.
19
----oo0oo----
20
21
Plaintiff Joanne Blight brought this action against
22
defendants the City of Manteca, Manteca Police Department
23
Detectives Armando Garcia and Ian Osborn, and Manteca Police
24
Department Sergeants Paul Carmona and Chris Mraz, alleging that
25
defendants violated her Fourth Amendment rights when they engaged
26
in a “SWAT style raid” and “search” of her home.”
27
32 (Docket No. 1.)
28
authorized by a state court warrant issued pursuant to a sworn
(Compl. ¶¶ 19,
Defendants claim that the search was
1
1
affidavit they had submitted to the state court containing
2
information provided by a confidential informant (“CI”).
3
Answer at 12 (Docket No. 5).)
4
misrepresented or omitted material aspects of what the CI told
5
them in their affidavit to the state court.
6
at 2 (Docket No. 55).)
(See
Plaintiff claims that defendants
(Feb. 10, 2017 Order
7
The court previously granted defendants leave to seal
8
(1) the CI’s personally identifying information (name, address,
9
and phone number); and (2) information that could lead to the
10
CI’s identity by working backwards (prior interactions with law
11
enforcement, prior criminal history, and date CI last visited the
12
incident-related property).
13
requests to seal the same information in connection with
14
plaintiff’s response to defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment.
15
(Docket No. 114.)
16
(Docket No. 92.)
Plaintiff now
The court’s prior findings with respect to defendants’
17
request to seal apply equally to plaintiff’s request.
18
previously explained:
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
The court
The court is satisfied that the personally
identifying information implicates the safety of
the CI and thus satisfies the “compelling
reasons” standard. The second category of
information also implicates the CI’s safety
because an individual could take this
information, work backwards, and potentially make
a reasonable guess of the CI’s identification if
the individual had the CI’s prior criminal
history and sentencing, the CI’s prior
interactions with law enforcement, and the date
the CI last visited the incident-related
property. For example, knowing the last date the
CI visited the incident-related property may
allow individuals with knowledge of the incident,
including plaintiff, to determine the identity of
the CI.
28
2
1
In other words, compelling reasons exist to seal this
2
information, and the public policies favoring disclosure do not
3
outweigh the interests in ensuring the safety of a CI by sealing
4
information that does not appear to be dispositive to the case.
5
See Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178-79
6
(9th Cir. 2006); Mitchell v. Cate, Civ. No. 2:11-1240 JAM AC P,
7
2014 WL 1671589, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 28, 2014) (granting
8
request to seal “information [that] cannot be revealed without
9
endangering informants”); United States v. Conner, No. 15-CR-
10
00296 HSG 1, 2015 WL 8482205, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 10, 2015)
11
(granting request to seal information “contain[ing] the possible
12
identity of a confidential informant”); cf. United States v. Bus.
13
of Custer Battlefield Museum, 658 F.3d 1188, 1195 n.5 (9th Cir.
14
2011) (“With respect to warrant materials, courts have recognized
15
several concerns that may call for redaction of materials or
16
withholding of disclosure outright.
17
the need to protect the identities and safety of confidential
18
informants.”) (citations omitted).
19
plaintiff’s motion.
20
These concerns include . . .
Thus, the court will grant
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff’s request to
21
seal certain information in her response to defendants’ Motion
22
for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 114) be, and the same hereby is,
23
GRANTED.
24
information under seal.
25
this information in connection with future motions at the time
26
those motions are made.
27
Dated:
Plaintiff is permitted to submit the requested
The court will address the sealing of
August 18, 2017
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?