Blight v. Manteca et al
Filing
92
ORDER RE: REQUEST TO SEAL signed by Senior Judge William B. Shubb on 6/28/17. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendants' request to seal certain information for their summary adjudication motion 91 be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED Defendants are permitted to submit the requested information under seal. The information may be accessed only by the court, defendants, defense counsel, and plaintiff's counsel. (Mena-Sanchez, L)
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).)
5
misrepresented or omitted material aspects of what the CI told
6
them in their affidavit to the state court.
7
at 2 (Docket No. 55).)
(See
Plaintiff claims that defendants
(Feb. 10, 2017 Order
8
The court previously denied defendants’ request to seal
9
several documents involving the CI because the defendants did not
10
“sufficiently articulate[] why disclosure of the documents and
11
information at issue will jeopardize the CI’s safety.”
12
Order 4:27-5:1 (Docket No. 68).)
13
defendants’ request to seal certain information in connection
14
with defendants’ Motion for summary adjudication.
15
91.)
16
(March 22
Presently before the court is
(Docket No.
A party seeking to seal a judicial record bears the
17
burden of overcoming a strong presumption in favor of public
18
access.
19
1178 (9th Cir. 2006).
20
reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the
21
general history of access and the public policies favoring
22
disclosure, such as the public interest in understanding the
23
judicial process.”
24
on a motion to seal, the court must balance the competing
25
interests of the public and the party seeking to keep records
26
secret.
27
28
Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172,
The party must “articulate compelling
Id. at 1178-79 (citation omitted).
In ruling
Id. at 1179.
Defendants seek to seal five discrete pieces of
information: (1) the name of the incident-related CI; (2) the
2
1
phone number and address of the CI; (3) any prior interaction
2
between the CI and law enforcement; (4) and prior criminal
3
history of the CI and any sentencing; and (5) the CI’s visits to
4
the incident-related property.
5
defendants, public disclosure of such information is necessary
6
because the safety of the CI and the CI’s family is in jeopardy
7
if identifying information or related information is release and
8
disclosure would reduce the ability to use the active CI in
9
future matters.
10
(Notice 1:27-2:3.)
According to
The court agrees that there is a safety concern with
11
disclosing the personal information of a confidential informant.
12
See, e.g., Mitchell v. Cate, Civ. No. 2:11-1240 JAM AC P, 2014 WL
13
1671589, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 28, 2014) (granting request to
14
seal “information [that] cannot be revealed without endangering
15
informants”); United States v. Conner, No. 15-CR-00296 HSG 1,
16
2015 WL 8482205, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 10, 2015) (granting
17
request to seal information “contain[ing] the possible identity
18
of a confidential informant”); cf. United States v. Business of
19
Custer Battlefield Museum, 658 F.3d 1188, 1195 n.5 (9th Cir.
20
2011) (“With respect to warrant materials, courts have recognized
21
several concerns that may call for redaction of materials or
22
withholding of disclosure outright.
23
the need to protect the identities and safety of confidential
24
informants.”).
25
defendants’ current request is narrowly focused on specific
26
information with an explanation for why such information should
27
be sealed.
28
These concerns include . . .
Unlike defendants’ previous request to seal,
Defendants limit the sealed information to two
3
1
categories: (1) the CI’s personally identifying information
2
(name, address, and phone number); and (2) information that could
3
lead to the CI’s identity by working backwards (prior
4
interactions with law enforcement, prior criminal history, and
5
date CI last visited the incident-related property).
6
is satisfied that the personally identifying information
7
implicates the safety of the CI and thus satisfies the
8
“compelling reasons” standard.
9
information also implicates the CI’s safety because an individual
10
could take this information, work backwards, and potentially make
11
a reasonable guess of the CI’s identification if the individual
12
had the CI’s prior criminal history and sentencing, the CI’s
13
prior interactions with law enforcement, and the date the CI last
14
visited the incident-related property.
15
last date the CI visited the incident-related property may allow
16
individuals with knowledge of the incident, including plaintiff,
17
to determine the identity of the CI.
18
The court
The second category of
For example, knowing the
Having reviewed defendants’ request to seal, the court
19
finds that compelling reasons exist to seal the requested
20
information.
21
access, the court finds that the public policies favoring
22
disclosure do not outweigh the interests in ensuring the safety
23
of a CI by sealing information that does not appear to be
24
dispositive to the case.
25
defendants’ request to seal.
26
While the public has an interest in disclosure and
Accordingly, the court will grant
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendants’ request to
27
seal certain information for their summary adjudication motion
28
(Docket No. 91) be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED.
4
1
Defendants are permitted to submit the requested
2
information under seal.
The information may be accessed only by
3
the court, defendants, defense counsel, and plaintiff’s counsel.
4
Dated:
June 28, 2017
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
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?