Blight v. Manteca et al

Filing 68

ORDER signed by Senior Judge William B. Shubb on 3/21/17 ORDERING that defendants' request to seal is DENIED. Defendants' redacted request for reconsideration of the magistrate judge's ruling 62 and its supporting exhibits [62-1] are STRICKEN.(Kastilahn, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
----oo0oo----

11
12

JOANNE BLIGHT,
Plaintiff,

13
14
15
16
17
18
19

CIV. NO. 2:15-2513 WBS AC
ORDER RE: 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.

20
----oo0oo----

21
22

Plaintiff Joanne Blight brought this action against

23

defendants the City of Manteca, Manteca Police Department

24

Detectives Armando Garcia and Ian Osborn, and Manteca Police

25

Department Sergeants Paul Carmona and Chris Mraz, alleging that

26

defendants violated her Fourth Amendment rights when they engaged

27

in a “SWAT style raid” and “search” of her home.

28

32 (Docket No. 1).)

(Compl. ¶¶ 19,

Defendants claim that the search was
1

1

authorized by a state court warrant issued pursuant to a sworn

2

affidavit they had submitted to the state court containing

3

information provided by a confidential informant (“CI”).

4

Answer at 12 (Docket No. 5); Docket No. 47 at 3.)

5

claims that defendants misrepresented or omitted material aspects

6

of what the CI told them in their affidavit to the state court.

7

(Feb. 10, 2017 Order at 2 (Docket No. 55).)

8
9

(See

Plaintiff

On February 10, 2017, the magistrate judge in this case
issued an order granting plaintiff’s motion to compel the

10

deposition of the CI on grounds that the CI’s deposition was

11

necessary to a “fair presentation” of plaintiff’s claim that

12

defendants misrepresented or omitted material aspects of what the

13

CI told them in their affidavit to the state court.

14

3, 6.)

15

asking this court to reconsider the magistrate judge’s ruling on

16

February 24.

17

Defendants’ request for reconsideration is extensively redacted;

18

the exhibits attached to the request are wholly redacted and

19

identified only by title.

20

days after they filed their redacted request for reconsideration

21

and supporting exhibits, defendants requested that this court

22

allow them to file unredacted versions of their request for

23

reconsideration and supporting exhibits under seal.

24

has not objected to the filing of such documents under seal.

25

Pursuant to Local Rule 141(a), “[d]ocuments may be

(See id. at

Defendants, who opposed the motion, filed a request

(Defs.’ Req. for Recons. (Docket No. 62).)

(See id.; Docket No. 62-1.)

Three

Plaintiff

26

sealed only by written order of the Court, upon the showing

27

required by applicable law.”

28

standards generally govern motions to seal documents . . . .”

E.D. Cal. L.R. 141(a).

2

“Two

1

Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 677 (9th Cir.

2

2010).

3

. . . and [their] related attachments,” the court is directed to

4

apply a “‘compelling reasons’ standard.”

5

of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178-79 (9th Cir. 2006).

6

context of “[n]ondispositive motions” and “records attached to

7

[such motions],” by contrast, the Ninth Circuit has held that the

8

requesting party need only meet a “‘good cause’ standard” because

9

“the public’s interest in accessing dispositive materials does

In the context of requests to seal “dispositive pleadings

Kamakana v. City & Cty.
In the

10

not apply with equal force to non-dispositive materials.”

11

Pintos, 605 F.3d at 678; Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179-80.

12

Because defendants’ request for reconsideration merely

13

seeks to reverse the magistrate judge’s ruling compelling the

14

deposition of the CI, it is not a dispositive motion.

15

“good cause” standard applies to defendants’ request to seal.

16

Thus, the

While the “good cause” standard is not as rigorous as

17

the “compelling reasons” standard, see Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1180

18

(“A ‘good cause’ showing will not, without more, satisfy a

19

‘compelling reasons’ test.”), a “party asserting good cause bears

20

the burden, for each particular document it seeks to protect, of

21

showing that specific prejudice or harm will result if no

22

protective order is granted,” Davis v. Soc. Serv. Coordinators,

23

Inc., No. 1:10-CV-02372 LJO SKO, 2012 WL 2376217, at *1 (E.D.

24

Cal. June 22, 2012) (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins.

25

Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2003)).

26

harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples or articulated

27

reasoning, do not satisfy the [good cause] test.”

28

Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th
3

“Broad allegations of

Id. (quoting

1

Cir. 1992)).

2

from disclosure of information to the public, then it balances

3

the public and private interests to decide whether a protective

4

order is necessary.”

5

307 F.3d 1206, 1211 (9th Cir. 2002)).

6

“If a court finds particularized harm will result

Id. (quoting Phillips v. Gen. Motors Corp.,

Here, defendants seek to seal the following: (1) the

7

portions of their request for reconsideration which discuss

8

information allegedly provided by the CI to defendants, (2)

9

photocopies of text messages between the CI and defendant Garcia,

10

(3) a diagram drawn by the CI, and (4) the entire transcript of

11

the hearing held for plaintiff’s motion to compel before the

12

magistrate judge.

13

such documents and information “would identify the [CI] and then

14

jeopardize his/her safety” and “reduce [his/her] effectiveness in

15

future matters.”

16

According to defendants, public disclosure of

The court acknowledges that the safety of the CI is a

17

concern which, if in fact jeopardized by the documents and

18

information at issue, would be sufficient to satisfy the “good

19

cause” standard for sealing nondispositive documents.

20

Mitchell v. Cate, No. 2:11-CV-1240 JAM AC, 2014 WL 1671589, at *3

21

(E.D. Cal. Apr. 28, 2014) (granting request to seal “information

22

[that] cannot be revealed without endangering informants”); USA

23

v. Conner, No. 15-CR-00296 HSG 1, 2015 WL 8482205, at *4 (N.D.

24

Cal. Dec. 10, 2015) (granting request to seal information

25

“contain[ing] the possible identity of a confidential

26

informant”).

27
28

See, e.g.,

However, defendants have not sufficiently articulated
why disclosure of the documents and information at issue will
4

1

jeopardize the CI’s safety.

2

exception of the text messages, contain any of the CI’s personal

3

identifying information.

4

defendants would want to redact the CI’s phone number from the

5

text messages, which the court would grant leave to do, the court

6

is left without any explanation as to why the entirety of the

7

text messages and other documents defendants seek to seal, which

8

merely discuss information provided by the CI to defendants

9

without identifying the CI, require sealing.

None of the documents here, with the

While it is understandable that

It may be that

10

information provided by the CI to defendants is sufficient to

11

identify the CI.

12

why that is the case, “not the court’s obligation to guess” at

13

why that may be the case.1

14

SI PR, 2013 WL 655002, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 21, 2013).

15

“[B]ut it is defendants’ obligation to explain”

See Andrade v. Lewis, No. C 11-3528

Moreover, the court is not inclined to consider the

16

text messages and diagram submitted by defendants in reviewing

17

the magistrate judge’s ruling.

18

they emailed those exhibits to the magistrate judge “[o]n the

19

morning of the hearing” for plaintiff’s motion to compel, (Defs.’

20

Req. for Recons. at 2-3), it does not appear, from the transcript

21

of the hearing, that defendants ever brought the exhibits to the

22

magistrate judge’s attention at the hearing, where she ruled on

23

the motion.

24

text messages and diagram for the first time now, the court need

Though defendants represent that

Because it appears that defendants are raising the

25
26
27
28

1

Defendants cite an affidavit provided by defendant
Garcia indicating that the CI’s safety would be jeopardized if he
or she were to be identified. The affidavit does not explain why
disclosure of the documents and information at issue would result
in the CI’s identification, however.
5

1

not, and is not inclined to, consider such evidence in reviewing

2

the magistrate judge’s ruling.

3

2:09-0152 WBS, 2012 WL 469850, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 7, 2012)

4

(noting that the court need not consider new evidence in

5

resolving objections to a magistrate judge’s findings and

6

recommendations).

7

See Galik v. Nangalama, No. CIV.

The court further notes that the redacted version of

8

defendants’ request for reconsideration and supporting exhibits

9

were filed without the court’s authorization in violation of

10

Local Rule 140(b).

11

redactions are permitted unless the Court has authorized the

12

redaction.”).

13

140(b) in filing those documents, the court will strike those

14

documents from the record.

15
16

See E.D. Cal. L.R. 140(b) (“No other

Because defendants did not comply with Local Rule

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendants’ request to
seal be, and the same hereby is, DENIED.

17

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendants’ redacted request

18

for reconsideration of the magistrate judge’s ruling (Docket No.

19

62) and its supporting exhibits (Docket No. 62-1) be, and the

20

same hereby are, STRICKEN.

21

Dated:

March 21, 2017

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6