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.)

Download PDF
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?