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