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