I.F. et al v. City of Vallejo et al

Filing 93

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 2/16/2021 DENYING 82 Motion to Strike and GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART 80 Motion for Sanctions. Patrick Buelna, Adante Pointer, and Pointer & Buelna LLP are jointly and severally O RDERED to pay $14,000 in defendants' attorney's fees. These sanctions must be paid within 30 days of the entry of this order. 88 Motion for Sanctions is DENIED. 78 and [80-4] Request to Seal Documents are GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. The Clerk of Court shall UNSEAL all documents filed in connection with the request to seal and the cross-motions for sanctions, except for [80-2] Declaration of Ryan McMahon. (cc: Financial) (Huang, H)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

No. 2:18–cv–0673–JAM–CKD

I.F., et al.,

12

Plaintiffs,

13

ORDER ON MOTIONS FOR SANCTIONS &
REQUEST TO SEAL

v.

14

CITY OF VALLEJO; RYAN
MCMAHON,

15

Defendants.

16
17

Despite settling this civil rights and wrongful death case last year, the parties are still

18
19

before the court with a heated dispute stemming from alleged violations of their court-approved

20

stipulated protective order. What began as an informal discovery dispute over the confidential

21

designation of a short section of deposition testimony has ballooned into competing motions for

22

extensive sanctions against counsel for three of the plaintiffs and against counsel for both

23

defendants—accompanied by a request to seal the entirety of the surrounding briefing.
Defendants the City of Vallejo and Ryan McMahon move for Rule 37 sanctions and an

24
25

order of civil contempt against Adanté Pointer and Patrick Buelna of the firm Pointer & Buelna,

26

LLP, who are counsel for three of the four plaintiffs.1 (ECF No. 80.) Defendants seek hefty

27
28

1

The fourth plaintiff, I.F., is represented by separate counsel at Haddad & Sherwin LLP, who are
not implicated in—and have not participated in—the instant motions. In this order, unless
1

1

monetary sanctions for plaintiffs’ counsel distributing to the media a portion of McMahon’s

2

deposition testimony that was designated confidential under the protective order. Defendants also

3

request to seal the entirety of the briefing and filings in support of and in opposition to their

4

motion. (ECF No. 80.4, Request to Seal.) Plaintiffs oppose both the motion for sanctions and the

5

request to seal (ECF Nos. 81-83), and based on certain discoveries and events since defendants so

6

moved, plaintiffs now cross-move for sanctions (under Rule 11 and Rule 37) and an order of civil

7

contempt against defendants for maintaining the original sanctions motion and request to seal

8

(ECF No. 88). Plaintiffs seek an award of their own attorney’s fees, and referral of several

9

defense counselors for discipline.

10

On January 11, 2021, the undersigned provisionally granted the request to seal, and on

11

January 28, extended that grant to cover plaintiff’s cross-motion briefing as well. (ECF Nos. 79,

12

87.) Accordingly, all briefs and other filings related to these motions were provisionally filed

13

under seal, with the understanding that after the hearing on the motions the court would revisit

14

whether these documents would remain sealed. (ECF Nos. 80-86, 88, 90, 92; see ECF Nos. 87,

15

79 at 3.) The court heard remote arguments on the motions on February 10, 2021. (ECF No. 91.)

16

Mr. Buelna and Mr. Pointer appeared for plaintiffs, and Bruce Kilday, Katelyn Knight, and Derek

17

Konz appeared for defendants. For the following reasons, the court GRANTS IN PART and

18

DENIES IN PART defendants’ motion for sanctions and their request to seal; and DENIES

19

plaintiffs’ motion for sanctions.

20

BACKGROUND

21

This case arose from the death of Ronell Foster, an unarmed African American man who

22

was shot and killed in February 2018 by defendant Ryan McMahon, then a police officer for the

23

Vallejo Police Department (“VPD”). (ECF No. 8, First Am. Compl. ¶ 1; ECF No. 57 at 5.)

24

Foster’s mother and father, along with Foster’s two minor children—R.F. and I.F.—filed this suit

25

in March 2018. (ECF No. 1.) In August 2020, the parties settled all claims for a total of

26
27
28

otherwise noted, all references to “plaintiffs” refer only to the moving plaintiffs R.F., Paula
McGowan, and Ronell Foster, Sr.; and all references to “plaintiffs’ counsel” refer only to
counselors Pointer and Buelna.
2

1

$5,700,000—an unprecedented sum for the City—albeit with no admission of liability by

2

defendants. (ECF No. 66; ECF No. 81.6 at 4, 7-8.) In late September 2020, McMahon was fired

3

from the VPD for his conduct during a February 2019 fatal shooting of another person of color,

4

Willie McCoy. A civil case is ongoing against the City, McMahon, and other officers involved in

5

the McCoy shooting—with the same sets of attorneys representing the parties involved in the

6

instant motions. McCoy et al. v. City of Vallejo et al., No. 2:19-cv-01191-JAM-CKD (E.D. Cal.,

7

case filed June 27, 2019).

8

Significant media attention has surrounded each of these events, and indeed the media has

9

long reported the City of Vallejo’s problematic policing of communities of color. (See, e.g., ECF

10

No. 82.3 (Shane Bauer, How a Deadly Police Force Ruled a City, THE NEW YORKER, Nov. 16,

11

2020).) The instant motions arise against the backdrop of still more news coverage of

12

McMahon’s actions while a member of the VPD—and the City’s ensuing internal

13

investigations—with defendants arguing that disclosure of the filings surrounding these motions

14

will add to the emotional and reputational harm defendants have already suffered allegedly as a

15

result of one errant media communication by plaintiffs’ counsel.
Although the claims were settled in August 2020, this case remained active on the court’s

16
17

docket2 for approval of the settlement as to the minor plaintiffs and pending entry of stipulated

18

orders of dismissal for all plaintiffs’ claims.3 A series of post-settlement events and discoveries

19

have spawned the present motions alleging breaches of the protective order this court approved

20

early in the litigation. The following history clarifies the nature of both parties’ alleged

21

violations.

22

////

23

////

24
2

25
26
27
28

Notwithstanding an erroneous docketing notation addressed in more detail below.
The three moving plaintiffs still have not filed their stipulation for dismissal. Plaintiffs’ counsel
do not explain why they waited some two months after receiving the settlement money to request
that defendants sign a stipulation for dismissal. On January 11, 2021, plaintiffs’ counsel
circulated the stipulation for dismissal to defendants for signature. (ECF No. 88.9 at 4-7.)
Defendants have agreed to sign the stipulation once the instant motions are resolved. (Id.; ECF
No. 84 at 6 n.3.)
3
3

1

Discovery Proceeds under a Protective Order

2

In February 2019, the court signed the parties’ stipulated protective order to limit

3

disclosure of sensitive information obtained in discovery. (ECF No. 21.) The Protective Order

4

establishes its scope of protection, sets the grounds and process for designating material as

5

confidential, prescribes how to challenge such designations, and limits how protected confidential

6

material may be used and who can view it.

7

Under the stipulated terms, the Protective Order covers all “Protected Material,” and any

8

“testimony” that might reveal Protected Material. (Id. ¶ 3.) “Protected Material” is defined as

9

any disclosure or material “that is designated as ‘CONFIDENTIAL.’” (Id. ¶¶ 2.13.) In turn,

10

“CONFIDENTIAL” information or items are defined to include, among other things, “personnel

11

file records of any peace officer.” (Id. ¶ 2.2.) However, the Protective Order explicitly “do[es]

12

not cover . . . (a) any information that is in the public domain at the time of disclosure . . . or

13

becomes part of the public domain after its disclosure . . . as a result of publication not involving

14

a violation of this Order.” (Id. ¶ 3.)

15

Once material within the scope of the protective order is designated as

16

“CONFIDENTIAL,” it becomes “Protected Material” that can only be disclosed to select

17

categories of people close to the case, and only under specific circumstances. (Id. ¶¶ 2.13,

18

7.1, 7.2.) A party may not file in the public record any Protected Material without the written

19

permission of all parties, or a properly noticed court order; instead, to file Protected Material, a

20

party must seek leave to file under seal. (Id. ¶ 12.3.) If a party disagrees with another party’s

21

designation, the Protective Order lays out a process for challenging the designation. (Id. ¶ 6.)

22

But, unless there has been a waiver of the designation, all parties must continue to treat the

23

disputed material as confidential until the parties agree to change the designation, or the court

24

rules on the challenge. (Id. ¶¶ 6.2, 6.3.)

25

During discovery, after the court granted plaintiffs’ motion to compel (ECF No. 30), the

26

City produced documents from McMahon’s VPD personnel file including a 2019 internal affairs

27

investigation into whether McMahon had made an unauthorized modification to his duty firearm

28

(hereinafter, “the 2019 Internal Investigation”). The firearm displayed a custom endplate (or dust
4

1

cover) inscribed with the words “Veritas Aequitas”—Latin for “Truth” and “Justice”—arched

2

over a Celtic cross. (ECF No. 80.3, Konz Decl. ¶ 2.) In his internal affairs interview, McMahon

3

stated (as he would later testify at deposition) that the inscription was purely motivated by his

4

Irish Catholic faith and not by the movie The Boondock Saints, which he had never seen.4 (Id.)

5

Defendants designated this 2019 Internal Investigation material—part of McMahon’s personnel

6

file—as confidential under the Protective Order. Plaintiffs did not challenge that designation.

7

Defendant McMahon sat for his videotaped deposition on February 27, 2020. Several

8

portions of the 6-hour deposition were designated as confidential under the Protective Order.

9

During one 8-minute confidential-designated portion in the middle of the deposition, McMahon

10

answered questions regarding prior sustained complaints against him, and VPD internal affairs

11

investigations involving him.5 The final 4 minutes of this portion of testimony discussed the

12

2019 Internal Investigation. McMahon testified that a firearms instructor noticed the inscription

13

while testing the firearms “as part of the McCoy thing” (likely referring to the internal affairs

14

investigation of the McCoy shooting, mentioned 3 minutes earlier in the deposition). The 2019

15

Internal Investigation was not connected with the Foster shooting from the year prior, although

16

McMahon used the same gun in both shootings. (ECF No. 80.3, Konz Decl. ¶ 2.)

17

McMahon testified that the investigation was opened in part because the words Veritas

18

Aequitas feature in the 1999 movie The Boondock Saints in which two Irish Catholic brothers

19

tattooed with those words6 murder gangsters in the name of vigilante justice.7 McMahon testified

20
4

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

As explained at the end of this order, the court finds that the information discussed in the
moving papers and exhibits regarding the 2019 Internal Investigation is now in the public domain,
and so does not warrant the protection afforded by the court’s provisional order to seal.
Accordingly, this order discusses such information from the 2019 Internal Investigation as
necessary to explain the basis for its ruling on these motions.
5
The relevant portion of the deposition transcript was provided directly to the court for the
November 10, 2020 informal discovery conference, but it has not been filed on the docket.
6
These words appear in the Latin Vulgate Bible: “et conversum est retrorsum iudicium et iustitia
longe stetit quia corruit in platea veritas et aequitas non potuit ingredi,” which translates to “And
judgment is turned away backward, and justice standeth afar off: for truth is fallen in the street,
and equity cannot enter.” Isaiah 59:14 (King James).
7
“Tired of the crime overrunning the streets of Boston, Irish Catholic twin brothers are inspired
by their faith to cleanse their hometown of evil with their own brand of zealous vigilante justice.
As they hunt down and kill one notorious gangster after another, they become controversial folk
5

1

that he put the endplate on his firearm in 2010 at the start of his law enforcement career, without

2

knowledge of the movie. He explained that he attached the endplate as a way of practicing his

3

Irish Catholic religion, and that the endplate was removed following the investigation. The

4

deposition transcript reflects that this portion of the deposition was designated “confidential,

5

attorney’s eyes only.” Plaintiffs did not challenge the designation of this portion of the deposition

6

testimony either. (ECF No. 80.3, Konz Decl. ¶ 3.)

7

Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment

8

On June 26, 2020, plaintiff R.F. moved for partial summary judgment. (ECF No. 57.) In

9

support of the motion, plaintiff lodged with the court as Exhibit 8 a disc that contained, as

10

relevant, 1 hour and 24 minutes of McMahon’s deposition testimony. (ECF No. 81 at 8, see ECF

11

Nos. 57.8 (“Exhibit 8”), 58 (“Notice of Lodging Documents”).) Plaintiff’s counsel also sent

12

defendants a Dropbox.com link to electronic versions of all four manually filed summary

13

judgment exhibits, including Exhibit 8. (ECF No. 80.3 at 28, Konz Decl. Ex. C.) The 8 minutes

14

of confidential-designated testimony was included within that segment of videotaped testimony,

15

but it was not mentioned or cited to in support of the summary judgment motion. Plaintiffs’

16

counsel admit that this portion of testimony was “inadvertently” included on the disc that was

17

lodged with the court. (ECF No. 81 at 8.) Defendants did not object to the unsealed filing of

18

Exhibit 8—which they did not then know contained the confidential-designated segment.

19

Because the disc was physically lodged with the court and not filed electronically, it was not

20

publicly accessible through PACER, however; and because the court has been closed to the public

21

due to COVID-19 since March, no member of the public could access the physical copy of the

22

disc. (ECF No. 80, Konz Decl. ¶ 7.)

23

Settlement

24

On August 6, 2020, following a settlement conference with a magistrate judge, the parties

25

settled all claims for a total of $5,700,000. (ECF Nos. 68 at 2, 81.6 at 4.) On September 14,

26

2020, the magistrate judge approved the settlement terms and allocation for minor plaintiff I.F.

27
28

heroes in the community.” https://g.co/kgs/4vbxmu.
6

1

(Foster’s daughter), who is represented by different counsel than the other three plaintiffs

2

represented by Pointer & Buelna. (ECF No. 68.) On September 25, 2020, plaintiff I.F. filed her

3

stipulated proposed order of dismissal of her claims against defendants, which the court signed

4

the same day. (ECF Nos. 69, 70.) The stipulation stated, in relevant part: “the parties hereby

5

stipulate to the dismissal with prejudice of all claims between this Plaintiff and all

6

Defendants . . . .” (ECF No. 70 at 2 (emphasis added).) The Clerk of Court then erroneously

7

marked the entire case as Closed. Nevertheless, on October 5, 2020, the magistrate judge

8

overseeing the settlement issued an order approving the settlement terms and allocation for minor

9

plaintiff R.F. (Foster’s son). (ECF No. 71.) This order found reasonable plaintiffs’ counsel’s

10

$627,845.49 in costs and attorney’s fees (25% of R.F.’s settlement). (Id. at 4.) Plaintiffs R.F.,

11

McGowan, and Foster, Sr., executed their private Release of Claims on October 30, 2020 and

12

received their settlement check from defendants on November 5, 2020. (ECF No. 81.2, Buelna

13

Decl. ¶ 5; ECF No. 81.6., Buelna Decl. Ex. 4.)

14

The Disclosure to KTVU

15

Meanwhile, post-settlement, plaintiffs’ counsel had received media requests for the public

16

filings attached to R.F.’s motion for partial summary judgment. (ECF No. 81.2, Buelna Decl.

17

¶ 6.) On October 1, 2020, Mr. Buelna emailed a reporter at KTVU Fox 2 another Dropbox.com

18

link to the electronic versions of the four manually filed exhibits, including Exhibit 8’s video

19

deposition testimony.8 (Id.; ECF No. 80.3 at 26, Ex. B.) The reporter replied expressing interest,

20

and on October 20, 2020, KTVU broadcast TV and online stories discussing that testimony.

21

KTVU published an online news article authored by the same reporter (ECF No. 88.4, Ex. 3), and

22

broadcast a TV news story across the Bay Area that discussed and played clips from both the

23

public and confidential-designated portions of McMahon’s deposition testimony (ECF No. 80.3,

24

Konz Decl. ¶ 6). The KTVU article remains accessible online. Video of the broadcast news story

25

does not accompany the online article on KTVU.com, but the video is still viewable online

26

through another online news source, The West Australian, that published it shortly after KTVU.

27
28

8

Defendants correctly observe that this Dropbox link sent to the reporter is different than the
Dropbox link sent to defense counsel in June 2020 with the summary judgment motion.
7

1

The 5-minute broadcast story—narrated by the same reporter that Mr. Buelna

2

communicated with—introduces McMahon’s taped deposition “exclusively obtained by KTVU.”

3

The first several minutes of the story replay footage from McMahon’s body camera during the

4

Foster encounter (not in dispute) and portions of McMahon’s deposition that were not marked as

5

confidential—discussing how plaintiffs’ attorneys believed various “revelations” from these

6

portions of the deposition warranted reopening the criminal case against McMahon. Beginning at

7

minute-mark 3:21, the narrating reporter shifts to the confidential-designated material, stating:

8
9
10
11

We are also learning that McMahon has a history of discipline and
was the subject of at least 3 other internal affairs investigations. In
one case Vallejo police were investigating a plate on the back of his
Glock pistol with a Celtic cross and the Latin words Veritas
Aequitas, or truth and justice. The attorneys point out that the
symbols were used in the movie The Boondock Saints where two
brothers inflict vigilante justice on criminals.

12

During this narration, the video zooms in on a photograph of McMahon’s service weapon

13

displaying the endplate inscription. The video then shows the cover art for The Boondock Saints

14

and plays a short clip from the movie showing the brothers’ Veritas and Aequitas hand tattoos.

15
16
17
18
19

At minute-mark 3:49–4:00, the video returns to McMahon’s deposition tape and airs the
following exchange from the confidential-designated portion of the deposition:
Q. And were you aware of that movie?
A. No.
Q. Why did you put that plate on the back of your gun?
A. Because I’m an Irish Catholic and I practice my religion.

20

The broadcast then turns to the VPD’s and Solano County District Attorney’s investigation of the

21

Foster shooting and concludes with a KTVU interview of plaintiffs’ counsel Adanté Pointer.

22

During the broadcast interview, Mr. Pointer advocates for reopening the criminal case based on

23

McMahon’s deposition statements—but without reference to any of the confidential-designated

24

portions of testimony.

25

The same day the story aired, Mr. Pointer posted on his Facebook account a link to

26

KTVU’s online version of the story. (ECF No. 80.3 at 31, Konz Decl. Ex. D.) Two days later, on

27

October 22, 2020, Mr. Pointer again posted about the news story on Facebook, including a photo

28

of a television playing the story (depicting McMahon in the deposition), which he captioned “My
8

1

interview on Channel 2 re Ronell Foster, Vallejo PD and his family’s demand that [the DA]

2

criminally charge this killer cop.” (Id. at 32.)

3

Efforts to Resolve

4

On October 27, 2020, defense counsel learned of the KTVU story and public release of

5

the confidential-designated portion of deposition testimony. (ECF No. 80 at 5.) This set off a

6

flurry of action on all sides. That afternoon, defense counsel Derick Konz emailed plaintiffs’

7

counsel about the story’s airing and the apparent Protective Order violation, requesting that they

8

take all possible steps to retrieve and remove the deposition video from public view. (ECF

9

No. 80.3 at 9, Konz. Decl. Ex. A.) Mr. Buelna responded the next morning saying that it

10

appeared the displayed deposition clip was obtained from plaintiff R.F.’s Exhibit 8 filing. (Id.

11

at 10.) Mr. Buelna explained: “The video clips were not synced to the transcript and not sorted

12

by confidential designations as they typically are but 4 time fragments that included the cited

13

deposition testimony in the motion that was not confidential. Plaintiffs included time fragment 3

14

as an exhibit and inadvertently disclosed portions of the confidential testimony in their lodging on

15

the Court’s public docket.” (Id.)

16

Mr. Buelna promised to abide by the Protective Order’s provisions to address the

17

inadvertent disclosure. (Id.) In addition, Mr. Buelna invoked Rule 26(b)(5)(B) and the Protective

18

Order, stating that plaintiffs were now disputing the designation of the video clip, and he

19

proposed a joint letter to the undersigned to rule on the issue. (Id.)

20

Later the same day, October 28, plaintiffs moved the court to withdraw and seal Exhibit 8

21

on the docket (ECF No. 72; see ECF No. 73 (sealing ECF Nos. 57.8 & 58)), and Mr. Buelna

22

informed defense counsel that the Dropbox link to the exhibit had been removed and that he

23

would ask the media to remove or hold the story. (ECF No. 80.3 at 14-15, Konz. Decl. Ex. A.)

24

That evening, Mr. Buelna emailed Mr. Konz again saying that he had contacted KTVU and The

25

West Australian to remove the portion of the videos and article that reference or display the

26

confidential-designated portion of the transcript. (Id. at 15.) Mr. Buelna assured him that “[w]e

27

have conducted further searches to discover any other media that are displaying/publishing the

28

story, but have not found any. We will diligently continue our efforts.” (Id.)
9

On Thursday, October 29, Mr. Konz followed up with a series of questions for plaintiffs’

1
2

counsel about the KTVU story. In an email response the same day, Mr. Buelna answered each of

3

the questions as follows.

4

•

Regarding defendants’ question about the Dropbox links to the exhibits, Mr. Buelna

5

indicated that he was “not sure” if the link sent to defendants in June 2020 was the same

6

as the link sent to KTVU on October 1 but invited Mr. Konz to check the attached email

7

exchange.

8

•

Defendants asked how KTVU got a copy of the photo of McMahon’s firearm that was

9

also marked as confidential when produced as part of the 2019 Internal Investigation. Mr.

10

Buelna stated that plaintiffs’ counsel did not provide to the media any exhibits other than

11

the four that were manually filed with the summary judgment motion, which did not

12

contain that image. Mr. Buelna said he did not know how KTVU got the photo, “but it

13

was not us.”

14

•

15
16

Mr. Buelna confirmed that those four exhibits were all that he provided to KTVU, and that
he did not provide any material to any other media outlet besides KTVU.

•

Last, as relevant to this motion, Mr. Buelna stated that he could not say for certain when

17

he or Mr. Pointer first saw the KTVU story. He stated, “We certainly did not realize that

18

any confidentially designated material was disclosed, and as you can see from the story

19

[Mr. Pointer] was not commenting on that information.”

20

(ECF No. 80.3 at 18-19, Konz. Decl. Ex. A.)

21

On October 28 and 29, Mr. Buelna contacted the KTVU reporter to ask about the

22

photograph of McMahon’s gun. The reporter refused to disclose his sources for the story but

23

stated that he had multiple. When Mr. Buelna asked again on January 11, 2021, the reporter gave

24

the same response. (ECF No. 81.2, Buelna Decl. ¶ 7.) On October 30, Mr. Buelna emailed

25

defense counsel that his firm did not release the photograph and wondered whether some of the

26

details in the reporting might have come from the City or from plaintiff I.F.’s counsel. (ECF

27

No. 81.8 at 13, Buelna Decl. Ex. 6.) I.F.’s counsel confirmed they knew nothing about the photo.

28

(Id.)
10

1

Mr. Buelna also emailed the two media outlets known to have published the offending

2

story. (ECF No. 81.10, Buelna Decl. Ex. 8.) On October 28 and 29, he emailed the KTVU

3

reporter and an executive producer requesting that they remove or edit out of the video and online

4

article all references to McMahon’s testimony about the 2019 Internal Investigation—or that they

5

suspend the story until the designation was resolved. KTVU responded that it would not

6

accommodate the request, noting that “the story has already aired on TV and has been live on

7

ktvu.com for two weeks and contains information that is of public interest.” (Id. at 6.) On

8

October 28 and November 2, Mr. Buelna emailed The West Australian’s general Web Editor

9

address requesting the same, but no response appears in the record—and their copy of the video

10

broadcast remains fully accessible. (Id. at 3-4.)

11

Informal Discovery Conference

12

Mr. Buelna and Mr. Konz then set about preparing a joint letter to the undersigned in

13

advance of an informal discovery conference they had requested regarding plaintiffs’ dispute of

14

the confidential designation of the deposition testimony about the 2019 Internal Investigation.

15

There was some disagreement as to whether the letter had to be filed on the docket or whether it

16

could simply be emailed to the undersigned. Plaintiffs ultimately filed on the docket a Notice of

17

Request and Request to Seal the parties’ joint discovery dispute letter, and a supporting

18

declaration. (ECF Nos. 75, 75.1.) Both documents referenced a “short clip of deposition

19

testimony from Defendant that described an internal affairs investigation into alterations to his

20

duty firearm.” (Id.) When defendants objected that this unnecessarily disclosed the at-issue

21

confidential information, the undersigned agreed to strike those filings, as informal joint letters to

22

the undersigned need not be filed on the public docket at all. (ECF No. 77.)

23

At the informal discovery conference on November 10, 2020, the undersigned declined to

24

re-designate the disputed portion of deposition testimony as non-confidential. The court did not

25

formally rule on the matter, noting in its minute order that “there is no change to the status of this

26

case or its filings” and that “[t]he parties remain free to file any formal motions they may deem

27

appropriate.” (Id.)

28

////
11

1

Motion for Sanctions and Subsequent Independent Public Disclosures

2

Counsel met and conferred regarding defendants’ intention to file a Rule 37 sanctions

3

motion for the asserted violations of the Protective Order: plaintiffs’ counsel sending the

4

confidential-designated portion of deposition testimony to the KTVU reporter, after filing the

5

same on the public docket. According to defense counsel’s version of the call, plaintiffs’ counsel

6

would not admit that they violated the Protective Order, despite admitting that they had

7

transmitted the confidential-designated deposition segment in the October 1 email. (ECF No.

8

80.3, Konz Decl. ¶¶ 15-16; ECF No. 80.3 at 23-24, Konz Decl. Ex. A.) According to plaintiffs’

9

counsel, defense counsel used the call to “berat[e]” them, instead of trying to informally resolve

10

the matter. (ECF No. 81.2, Buelna Decl. ¶ 14.) In a follow-up email, plaintiffs’ counsel objected

11

that filing a Rule 37 motion would amount to intimidation and harassment—intended to chill their

12

prosecution of other ongoing civil rights cases against the City9—and would be improper since

13

the case had settled and was “closed.”10 (ECF No. 80.3 at 23-24, Konz Decl. Ex. A.) Plaintiffs’

14

counsel also informed defense counsel that plaintiffs would, themselves, seek Rule 11 sanctions if

15

defendants pursued a Rule 37 sanctions motion. (Id.) On December 21, 2020 defendants

16

proceeded to file the instant motion for sanctions, requesting permission to file under seal. (ECF

17

Nos. 78, 80.)

18

Through an independent (though somewhat interwoven) chain of events, the very next day

19

the former VPD police captain who allegedly requested the 2019 Internal Investigation, filed a

20

civil whistleblower lawsuit in Solano County Superior Court against the City of Vallejo for firing

21

him after he reported various concerns of wrongdoing within the VPD. (ECF No. 81.3, John

22

Whitney v. The City of Vallejo, et al., No. FCS055842 (Cal. Super. Ct. Solano Cty., complaint

23
24
25
26
27
28

Plaintiffs’ counsel are actively litigating at least three other excessive force cases against the
City of Vallejo. See Monterrosa et al. v. City of Vallejo, No. 2:20-cv-01563-TLN-DB (E.D. Cal.,
filed Aug. 6, 2020); Burrell et al. v. City of Vallejo et al., No. 2:19-cv-01898-WBS-KJN (E.D.
Cal., filed Sept. 18, 2019); McCoy et al. v. City of Vallejo et al., No. 2:19-cv-01191-JAM-CKD
(E.D. Cal., filed June 27, 2019).
10
See E.D. Cal. R. 141.1(f) (“Once the Clerk has closed an action, unless otherwise ordered, the
Court will not retain jurisdiction over enforcement of the terms of any protective order filed in
that action.”).
12
9

1

filed Dec. 22, 2020).) Among numerous other whistleblower events described in the complaint,

2

former Captain Whitney alleges that in February 2019, he “discovered that the phrase Veritas

3

Aequitas had been embedded on an officer’s firearm end-plate”; and that he reported it up the

4

chain of command and recommended an internal investigation. (Id. ¶ 27.) Whitney also alleges

5

that he was later discriminatorily singled out as the source of an alleged media leak that resulted

6

in a journalist submitting two April 2019 Public Records Act (“PRA”) requests for

7

(1) information and records that “contain Aftermarket parts and/or Veritas Aequitas” and (2) a

8

connected internal investigation, identified by its VPD case number. (Id. ¶¶ 39-41.)
On December 24, 2020, ABC7 News published an online article about Whitney’s

9
10

whistleblower suit, based on an interview with Whitney himself, which is still publicly

11

accessible.11 The article states:

12

In the complaint, Whitney claims in February of 2019 two
department firearms instructors alerted him that Officer Ryan
McMahon had embedded the words “Veritas Aequitas” on his
firearm end-plate. The Latin words mean “truth” and “justice.”

13
14

“My concern is what could it mean to him? Does he believe he’s
invoking justice upon the community? And that’s certainly a
concern,” said Whitney.

15
16

In an emailed statement, McMahon’s attorney tells the I-Team in
part, “The inscription is directly related to Officer McMahon’s
Roman Catholic faith.”

17
18
19

(ECF No. 83.2 at 3, Buelna Decl. Ex. 1.) The article goes on to discuss the Whitney complaint’s

20

allegations that Whitney reported the endplate modification up the chain of command and

21

requested an internal investigation; and that McMahon was then placed on administrative leave

22

and required to surrender his badge, which led to the discovery of widespread “badge bending”

23

within the VPD. (Id. at 3-4.)

24

The online article essentially transcribes the reporting and interview statements recorded

25

in a video broadcast that accompanies the article. Like the article itself, the video begins with a

26

discussion of Whitney’s alleged discovery of McMahon’s endplate inscription. The video

27
28

11

https://abc7news.com/vallejo-police-department-john-whitney-pd-badge-bendingwhistleblower/9038302/.
13

1

displays the words “Veritas” and “Aequitas” alongside a still image of McMahon’s deposition

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

reenactment of his struggle with Foster:

17

The broadcast then shows Whitney’s video interview statement about why he reported his

18

concern over the endplate, followed by a slide showing the text of McMahon’s unnamed

19

attorney’s response that the inscription relates to McMahon’s faith.12 The article and broadcast

20

go on to describe Whitney’s other whistleblower events, unrelated to this case. The article and

21

video broadcast were published late on the same day that plaintiffs submitted their opposition to

22

defendants’ request to seal (ECF No. 82).

23

Upon learning of the Whitney suit and the ABC News story, plaintiffs’ counsel contacted

24

defendants to urge them to withdraw their request to seal because the information sought to be

25

sealed was now in the public domain, and therefore beyond the scope of the Protective Order.

26
27
28

12

At the hearing, defense counsel informed the court that they did not provide this statement to
ABC News and believed it might have come from the attorney representing McMahon in his
administrative challenge to his VPD termination.
14

1

(ECF No. 88.5 at 4, Buelna Decl. Ex. 4.) Defendants declined, and on December 30, 2020,

2

plaintiffs submitted a supplemental opposition brief alerting the court to the recent independent

3

publications of the information at issue. (ECF No. 83.)

4

Final Events

5

On January 4, 2021, in a notation only visible to the court, the Clerk of Court reopened the

6

case, noting that it had been closed in error. (Dkt. Text 9/25/2020, entered 1/4/2021.) On

7

January 11, 2021, the court provisionally granted defendants’ request that all briefing and

8

supporting filings in the instant motions be filed under seal, and set an extended briefing

9

schedule. (ECF No. 79.) The court explained that defendants’ initial request to preemptively seal

10

all papers was improper and insufficiently supported; but the court allowed defendants to provide

11

additional support for the request in further briefing, noting that there “may be good cause to seal

12

at least portions of certain materials.” (Id. at 2-3.)

13

On January 12, 2021, plaintiffs’ counsel again contacted defendants, this time urging them

14

to withdraw their motion for sanctions, or face a Rule 11 motion from plaintiffs. (ECF No. 88.9

15

at 2-3, Buelna Decl. Ex. 8.) Plaintiffs’ counsel argued that the City’s receipt of the April 2019

16

PRA Requests showed that the City had already disclosed to the press information from the 2019

17

Internal Investigation—bringing McMahon’s deposition testimony on the same subject outside

18

the scope of the Protective Order. (Id.) They further argued that defendants’ motion had

19

concealed from the court the PRA Requests in an effort to pin the bad publicity on plaintiffs’

20

counsel when the City “had already leaked the story to the press.” (Id.)

21

Defendants declined to withdraw their motions, and on January 27, 2021, plaintiffs filed

22

the instant cross-motion for sanctions under Rules 11 and 37. (ECF No. 88.) All motions were

23

fully briefed before the hearing. (ECF Nos. 80.4, 82, 83, 85, 86 (defendants’ request to seal);

24

Nos. 80, 81, 84 (defendants’ motion for sanctions); Nos. 88, 90, 92 (plaintiffs’ motion for

25

sanctions).)

26

In terms of relief, defendants are requesting an order of civil contempt and sanctions of:

27

(1) return of plaintiffs’ counsel’s settlement fee from this case (more than $600,000) as a punitive

28

sanction, (2) $250,000 as a compensatory sanction to defendant McMahon, and (3) approximately
15

1

$25,000 in attorney’s fees. (ECF No. 80 at 17-21.) On the other side, plaintiffs are requesting an

2

order of civil contempt and sanctions of: (1) referring defense counsel for discipline, and

3

(2) award of their own attorney’s fees and costs related to these motions. (ECF No. 88 at 14, 17.)

4

DISCUSSION

5

For all the gravity of the underlying suit, the court concludes that the protective order

6

violations alleged in these motions do not warrant the magnitude of the sanctions sought. In the

7

court’s estimation, all that has happened is: (A) plaintiffs’ counsel mistakenly sent to one reporter

8

a piece of publicly filed evidence that neither side had realized contained protected information,

9

and (B) defendants justifiably wish to hold them accountable for that mistake—although, as

10

discussed below, to a far more extreme degree than the court is prepared to authorize. Without

11

minimizing what defendant McMahon has experienced since the news story, the court does not

12

find plaintiffs’ counsel’s actions egregious enough to award all—or indeed, most—of the

13

sanctions defendants request.

14

A. Defendants’ Motion for Sanctions and Civil Contempt

15

Both parties seek orders of civil contempt and sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil

16

Procedure 37. Initially, as all parties have not consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction in this

17

case, the most the undersigned can do as far as contempt is concerned is investigate whether

18

further contempt proceedings are warranted and certify such facts to a district judge. See

19

28 U.S.C. § 636(e)(6)(B)(iii); Grimes v. City & Cty. of San Francisco, 951 F.2d 236, 240 (9th

20

Cir. 1991) (“28 U.S.C. § 636, which governs the jurisdiction and powers of magistrates, requires

21

a magistrate to refer contempt charges to a district court judge.”); Lakes v. Bath & Body Works,

22

LLC, 2020 WL 4350243, at *3 (E.D. Cal. July 29, 2020) (“A magistrate judge may not . . .

23

conduct a contempt hearing in a civil case absent consent jurisdiction.”). The parties have not

24

identified a reason for needing a civil contempt finding where Rule 37 itself authorizes the

25

sanctions sought in these motions. In any event, the court does not view the alleged violations of

26

the Protective Order as warranting contempt proceedings. Accordingly, the court addresses the

27

alleged violations in the context of Rule 37 alone.

28

////
16

1

1. Legal Standard

2

When a party violates a discovery order like the Protective Order here, Rule 37 authorizes

3

district courts to issue “further just orders” as sanctions. Fed R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A). This

4

authority includes imposing a “sanction of reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, caused

5

by the failure to obey a discovery order.” Falstaff Brewing Corp. v. Miller Brewing Co., 702

6

F.2d 770, 784 (9th Cir. 1983). “Rule 37(b) sanctions may serve either remedial and

7

compensatory purposes or punitive and deterrent purposes,” but ultimately, “[t]he imposition and

8

selection of particular sanctions are matters left to the sound discretion of the trial court.” Id. at

9

783–84; see Grimes, 951 F.2d at 241 (noting the great flexibility of Rule 37 allowing the court to

10

“use as many and as varied sanctions as are necessary”).

11

Before proceeding to analyze the asserted violations, the court notes that it is still proper

12

to rule on these disputed Protective Order violations, even at this late stage of the litigation,

13

because this case is not yet closed. From September 25, 2020 until January 4, 2021, the docket

14

contained a clerk’s notation that the case was closed, due to a misinterpretation of the stipulation

15

for dismissal of I.F.’s claims (ECF No. 70). However, orders continued to be issued thereafter,

16

and most importantly, the claims of the other three plaintiffs were never dismissed by order of the

17

court—no stipulation of dismissal having been filed for them. Under Local Rule 141.1(f), this

18

court “will not retain jurisdiction over enforcement of the terms of any protective order” after the

19

Clerk of Court has closed the action. A technical reading of Rule 141.1(f) supports plaintiffs’

20

initial argument that the court should strike defendants’ motion on the basis of the case’s apparent

21

closure.13 But the court declines to so elevate form over substance in this case. With plaintiffs’

22

claims remaining live on the court’s docket absent a dismissal order, and with the erroneous case

23

closure having been corrected by the Clerk’s office, the court finds it appropriate to continue to

24

enforce the terms of its protective order.14 Accordingly, the court denies plaintiffs’ motion

25
26
27
28

13

Plaintiffs have since abandoned this argument by filing their own motion for Rule 37 sanctions
based on purported Protective Order violations.
14
Of course, once there are no longer any live claims in an action, the court will not hesitate to
decline jurisdiction over protective order disputes so as to avoid endless entanglement in what
are, post-litigation, essentially private contract disputes.
17

1

contained within their opposition brief (ECF No. 82) to strike defendants’ sanctions motion.
2. Plaintiffs’ Counsel Violated the Protective Order

2

Defendants argue that plaintiffs’ counsel violated the Protective Order by publicly filing

3
4

confidential-designated material on the docket in June 2020 and then sending that material to a

5

reporter on October 1, 2020.15 Plaintiffs’ counsel admit to having “inadvertently” done both.

6

(ECF No. 81 at 8, 10-11, 18, 26.) They even concede that this violated the Protective Order. (Id.

7

at 27 (characterizing their conduct as “a single, inadvertent breach of the protective order”).)

8

Nevertheless, plaintiffs advance several arguments for not imposing sanctions.

9

First, plaintiffs argue that it is “improper” and “disingenuous” for defendants to seek

10

sanctions for the Protective Order violations because defendants did not object to plaintiffs’

11

original filing of Exhibit 8 on the public record. (ECF No. 81 at 16-20.) Plaintiffs argue

12

extensively that, by failing to so object, defendants waived the right to seek to seal Exhibit 8. But

13

that is not the question at issue in this motion. Indeed, Exhibit 8 is currently under seal by

14

plaintiffs’ own remedial request. (ECF No. 73 (sealing ECF Nos. 57.8 & 58).) Defendants’

15

sanctions motion is not based on plaintiffs forwarding sealed material to the media, but on their

16

sending confidential-designated material in violation of the Protective Order. Whether

17

defendants waived their right to have Exhibit 8 sealed is irrelevant to whether some of its contents

18

were designated confidential at the time of plaintiffs’ media disclosure. This argument pertains

19

more to defendants’ present request to seal the current motions briefing, though plaintiffs do not

20

raise this argument in opposing the request to seal. It appears that this argument also attempts to

21

shift the blame for the KTVU story onto defendants. (See ECF No. 81 at 19 (“Indeed, the

22

primary reason that Exhibit 8 is in the public domain is that Defendants’ counsel made a strategic

23

decision to waive their right to move to seal it.”).) While this argument somewhat pertains to the

24

degree of sanctions warranted, it does not make defendants’ request for sanctions “improper.”

25

Second, plaintiffs briefly argue that defendants cannot seek sanctions because they settled

26
27
28

15

To a lesser extent, they also argue that plaintiffs violated the Protective Order again by
referring to the firearm modification in their November 2020 Request to Seal the joint discovery
dispute letter.
18

1

the case despite knowing of the asserted Protective Order violations, thereby releasing the present

2

sanctions claims. (ECF No. 81 at 20-22.) Plaintiffs cite no authority that settlement of the

3

substantive claims in an action precludes the parties from asserting protective order violations that

4

occurred during the litigation; and they point to no language in the executed Release of Claims in

5

support of their position. As previously noted, this case remained active on the court’s docket

6

(lacking an order dismissing all plaintiffs’ claims) at the time defendants moved for sanctions.

7

The court therefore maintained an interest in enforcing the terms of its orders, separate and apart

8

from the parties’ private agreement to settle their dispute. The parties’ settlement does not

9

preclude this sanctions motion.16

10

Third, plaintiffs argue that defendants themselves violated the Protective Order by

11

designating the 2019 Internal Investigation documents and deposition testimony confidential in

12

the first place. (ECF No. 81 at 22-23.) This sort of finger-pointing is utterly unhelpful. Whether

13

defendants also violated the Protective Order has no bearing on whether plaintiffs committed the

14

asserted violations. See Harmston v. City & Cty. of San Francisco, 2007 WL 3306526, at *6

15

(N.D. Cal. Nov. 6, 2007) (in holding that counsel violated protective order by providing

16

confidential-designated deposition testimony to the media and filing it on the public record,

17

noting that propriety of original confidential designation is “beside the point”; under the terms of

18

the protective order—similar to the Protective Order here—a confidential designation, “even if

19

later determined to be improper, remains in place until the Court orders otherwise after a

20

properly-presented challenge”).

21

Still, the court addresses here a related argument suggested throughout plaintiffs’

22

opposition (only substantively argued in their opposition to the request to seal): that the material

23

sent to KTVU was not within the scope of the Protective Order in the first place, and therefore its

24

transmission did not violate the Protective Order. Plaintiffs repeatedly emphasize that the

25

information at issue—that is, the entire 8-minute confidential-designated portion of McMahon’s

26

testimony—had already been placed in the public domain by others before plaintiffs’ June 2020

27
28

The court addresses plaintiffs’ allegations of defense counsel’s bad faith dealing in the
subsequent section resolving plaintiffs’ cross-motion for sanctions.
19
16

1

summary judgment filing and their October 1, 2020 email to KTVU. The Protective Order

2

expressly states that its “protections . . . do not cover . . . (a) any information that is in the public

3

domain at the time of disclosure.” (ECF No. 21 ¶ 3.) Accordingly, any information about the

4

2019 Internal Investigation already public by June 26, 2020, would not be covered—so plaintiffs’

5

filing or sharing of that information would not be actionable under the Protective Order, despite

6

the confidential designation.

7

While this argument is partially compelling in the context of resolving the request to seal

8

(discussed below), it does not absolve plaintiffs of their Protective Order violations. Plaintiffs’

9

only basis for arguing that the information McMahon shared in his confidential-designated

10

testimony was publicly known before June 2020 is the existence of the two PRA Requests

11

received by the City in April 2019. Plaintiffs first learned of the PRA Requests through the

12

allegations in the December 2020 Whitney complaint. In opposing plaintiffs’ cross-motion for

13

sanctions, defendants provide a copy of one April 15, 2019 online PRA Request from a journalist

14

requesting all records that “contain ‘Aftermarket parts’ and/or ‘Veritas Aequitas’” from between

15

February 1 and April 15, 2019. (ECF No. 90.1 at 4, Brown Decl. Ex. A.) The Whitney complaint

16

also describes another PRA Request from the same journalist on or around the same date

17

(April 15, 2019) seeking information regarding a VPD internal investigation—identified by

18

investigation case number—regarding “whether the incident was properly handled by the

19

involved officers.” (ECF No. 81.3 at 14-15, Buena Decl. Ex. 1.) The court has not received a

20

copy of that second PRA Request.

21

Plaintiffs argue that the submission of these rather detailed PRA Requests demonstrates

22

that the information contained in McMahon’s confidential-designated testimony was publicly

23

known over a year before they supposedly leaked it to KTVU. There are several reasons why this

24

argument does not preclude imposing sanctions.

25

First, although the PRA Requests indicate some knowledge of the firearm engraving and

26

the existence of an internal investigation, there is no way for the court to establish on this record

27

how much information about these subjects was disclosed to the journalist, prompting the request.

28

The court would need this information in order to assess the degree of overlap between what
20

1

plaintiffs revealed and what was already publicly known. Cf. Economus v. City & Cty. of San

2

Francisco, 2019 WL 3842008, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 15, 2019) (granting defendants’ motion to

3

retain confidentiality of investigatory material despite certain findings and disciplinary decisions

4

already being public, in part because the “information contained in the recordings is far more

5

detailed than the publicly available information cited by [plaintiff].”). Defendants did not release

6

any information in response to the documented PRA Request. (ECF No. 90.1 at 4, Brown Decl.

7

Ex. A. (VPD responding that “[t]here are no publicly available records responsive to your

8

request,” citing Cal. Penal Code § 832.7(a), inter alia).) And a custodian of records avers that the

9

City has always maintained the confidentiality of the 2019 Internal Investigation. (ECF No. 90.1,

10

Brown Decl. ¶ 4.)

11

Moreover, even assuming public knowledge of all the information contained in

12

McMahon’s 4-minute testimony regarding the 2019 Internal Investigation, Exhibit 8 also contains

13

an additional preceding 4 minutes of confidential-designated testimony regarding other internal

14

investigations and complaints. There is no suggestion that the public already knew this other

15

information at the time of plaintiffs’ filing and subsequent media email, so the Protective Order

16

plainly covers at least that portion of McMahon’s testimony. Under the Protective Order, once

17

material is designated confidential, it cannot be disclosed to the public unless and until the

18

designation is altered by the court (or mutually by the parties). (ECF No. 21 ¶¶ 2,13, 6.3, 7.)

19

Thus, at the very least, plaintiffs’ counsel’s disclosure of the first 4 minutes of the confidential-

20

designated testimony—by filing the Exhibit 8 disc without an attempt to seal, and by sending the

21

link to the reporter (regardless whether the story published all the information)—violated the

22

Protective Order.17 The material was covered by the Protective Order, designated confidential,

23

and was never re-designated before it was filed in June 2020 or disclosed to the reporter on

24

October 1, 2020. See Harmon v. City of Santa Clara, 323 F.R.D. 617, 625, 627 (N.D. Cal. 2018)

25

(finding that initial confidential designation of body-camera footage was improper but still

26

finding a protective order violation and imposing sanctions because the material was protected at

27
28

The court need not analyze whether plaintiffs’ counsel “substantially complied” with the
Protective Order, as sanctions are being imposed under Rule 37, not as an order of civil contempt.
21
17

1
2
3

the time of public disclosure).
3. Type of Sanctions Warranted
Rule 37(b) authorizes “a wide range of sanctions” for violating a discovery order, such as

4

the Protective Order here. United States v. Nat’l Med. Enterprises, Inc., 792 F.2d 906, 910 (9th

5

Cir. 1986). But any sanctions imposed “must be just” and “must specifically relate to the

6

particular claim at issue.” Id. Further, “a compensatory award is limited to the actual losses

7

sustained as a result of the contumacy.” Id. (cleaned up).

8

Defendants acknowledge the “unusual nature” of their motion and the hefty sanctions

9

proposed. (ECF No. 80 at 22.) They argue that it is necessary following plaintiffs’ “unusual

10

violation” to compensate the impacted parties, discourage future protective order violations, and

11

restore confidence in court-approved protective orders. (Id. at 5.) On the other hand, plaintiffs

12

characterize their media disclosure as “a small technical error.” (ECF No. 81 at 25.) The court

13

finds plaintiffs’ counsel’s missteps neither as unusual and egregious as defendants characterize

14

them, nor quite as minimal as plaintiffs paint them.

15

Both parties analogize primarily to Harmon v. City of Santa Clara, 323 F.R.D. 617 (N.D.

16

Cal. 2018), where the plaintiff’s post-settlement public release of confidential-designated video

17

footage also was found to have violated the parties’ protective order. In Harmon, the parties

18

settled an excessive force claim arising from officers breaking into the plaintiff’s home to arrest

19

her daughter. Id. at 619. After the City Council approved the $6.7 million settlement, the

20

plaintiff’s counsel sent his client the 19-minute video of the body camera footage from the police

21

encounter—which defendants had produced in discovery and designated as confidential under

22

their protective order. Id. at 620. The plaintiff uploaded the video to YouTube, and counsel sent

23

out “a media advisory to several outlets” that provided a link to the YouTube video. Id. Media

24

outlets around the Bay Area then re-posted the video online and ran stories based on its “upsetting

25

and graphic” footage. Id. at 620-21. The day after his client posted the video, plaintiff’s counsel

26

checked the physical copy of the DVD and saw that it was labeled as “CONFIDENTIAL.” He

27

immediately notified the court and defendants of the unintentional protective order violation,

28

instructed his client to remove the video, which she did, and then moved to challenge the video’s
22

1

confidential designation. Id. at 621. The City and the individual defendant officers separately

2

moved for sanctions, seeking many of the same types of relief defendants seek here: large

3

compensatory sanctions, forfeiture of plaintiff’s counsel’s settlement fee, and attorney’s fees. Id.

4

at 621-22.
The court ultimately awarded defendants $69,756.31 for attorney’s fees and costs in

5
6

litigating the protective order violation. Id. at 627-28. The court first ruled in plaintiff’s favor

7

that the body camera video did not warrant the confidential designation defendants had given it,

8

but it found sanctions nonetheless appropriate because the disclosure occurred while the material

9

was still designated as confidential. Id. at 622-26. In fashioning sanctions, the court noted that

10

plaintiff’s counsel were “woefully inadequate to the point of negligence” in checking the

11

confidentiality status of the video before disseminating it. Id. at 626. The court took issue with

12

counsel’s “minimal efforts to keep the video off the internet” after discovering the violation, as

13

they “seemingly did little else” besides instruct their client to remove the video from YouTube.

14

Id. at 621, 627. But given that the video was being de-classified as confidential, and that counsel

15

had “rightly met with embarrassment and strife from their imprudent behavior,” the court

16

declined to find civil contempt, or to order forfeiture of the settlement fee. Id. at 627. The court

17

also denied defendants’ request for compensatory sanctions, because it was “impossible to

18

disambiguate between harm caused to the defendants because of the video, versus harm that

19

befell them as a result of public awareness of the lawsuit and settlement more generally.” Id.

20

(noting that “there are consequences when police violate constitutional rights and a city drains its

21

coffers to atone for it”). Thus, the court imposed only the (still weighty) attorney’s fees and costs

22

of litigating the violation. Id. at 627-28.

23

In this case, plaintiffs no longer seek to re-designate the 8 minutes of videotaped

24

deposition testimony improperly filed on the public docket (albeit in physically inaccessible

25

form) and sent to the media.18 Accordingly, there is no court ordered re-designation to lessen

26
27
28

18

Plaintiffs did request its reclassification at the November 2020 informal discovery conference,
but the court declined to grant the request, believing at the time that the case was settled and
closed. (ECF No. 77.)
23

1

plaintiffs’ counsel’s culpability here, as there was in Harmon. Additional weights against

2

plaintiffs’ counsel on the sanctions scale are that Mr. Buelna provided the video deposition

3

directly to a member of the media without confirming that its contents were disclosable, that the

4

resulting news coverage went unaddressed for over a week before the confidential disclosure was

5

noticed, and that plaintiffs’ counsel did not catch their error themselves.

6

As in Harmon, plaintiffs’ counsel’s handling of the confidential-designated portion of

7

testimony was negligent. Although all this could have been avoided if defendants had objected to

8

the public filing of the entirety of Exhibit 8 back in June 2020, defendants were under no

9

obligation to watch the entire hour-and-a-half video to ensure that it did not contain confidential-

10

designated portions of testimony. Contrary to plaintiffs’ counsel’s brazen assertion, the “primary

11

reason” that Exhibit 8 was publicly filed is not that defense counsel strategically waived their

12

right to seal it (ECF No. 81 at 19), but that plaintiffs neglected their duty under the Protective

13

Order to check that the tape omitted all confidential-designated portions of McMahon’s

14

testimony.

15

Still, the court finds that the public filing and subsequent media disclosure was only

16

negligent, not more. As for the initial filing, Mr. Buelna satisfactorily explains how this small

17

portion of confidential-designated testimony was overlooked in the middle of the otherwise non-

18

protected testimony on the third video file; whereas, most of the other confidential-designated

19

testimony was captured in the fourth segment. As for the subsequent media disclosure, Mr.

20

Buelna’s quick email to the KTVU reporter providing a link to the same exhibits he had

21

previously publicly filed—and sent to defense counsel—when moving for summary judgment

22

suggests no greater knowledge of the exhibits’ contents than when they were physically lodged

23

with the court. Although plaintiffs’ counsel should have exercised greater caution when sending

24

materials directly to the media, it is understandable that Mr. Buelna believed the exhibits were all

25

already public-ready—having been publicly filed with the court for months. The court does not

26

read anything into the fact that the Dropbox link sent to the KTVU reporter displayed a different

27

URL than that sent to defense counsel some three months prior. Electronic file organization can

28

change easily, resulting in different shareable links to files stored on the Cloud, without changing
24

1
2

the stored documents themselves.
It is clear to the court that—in contrast to Harmon—Mr. Buelna did not know exactly

3

what he was sending to the media when he sent it. The plaintiff’s attorney in Harmon knew that

4

the 19 minutes of footage he sent to his client, and then advertised to the media at large, was all

5

never-before-seen body camera footage from the night of the underlying incident. Aware that the

6

transmitted footage had not previously been made public, for instance through filing on the

7

court’s public docket, plaintiff’s counsel in Harmon first asked an associate to check its

8

confidentiality status before sending it to the client (although the confidential designation was at

9

first overlooked because neither checked the physical DVD). 323 F.R.D. at 621. Here, although

10

Mr. Buelna knew that he was sending the KTVU reporter an exhibit containing McMahon’s

11

deposition testimony, there is no indication that he knew the video—much longer than the

12

Harmon video, at 1 hour and 24 minutes—contained a segment that might not be proper for

13

public consumption.

14

Defendants argue that heavy sanctions are warranted here in part because plaintiffs’

15

counsel failed to recognize on their own, and self-report, their Protective Order violation after the

16

KTVU story and broadcast aired. Cf. Harmon, 323 F.R.D. at 620-21 (after one day, plaintiff’s

17

attorney realized the DVD was confidential and reported the protective order violation to the

18

court and defendants). But the nature of McMahon’s deposition testimony itself somewhat

19

undercuts this argument. His deposition testimony about a tiny custom engraving on the back of

20

a gun pales in comparison to the “upsetting and graphic” video disclosed in Harmon. See id.

21

at 620. Yes, being compared to a fictional vigilante movie characters should be offensive to a

22

police officer, but it would not necessarily jump out to a plaintiff’s attorney—focused on other

23

aspects of the story’s deposition coverage—that the 11-second clip of deposition dialogue, or the

24

30 seconds displaying the gun and the motto, might be protected.

25

Moreover, the court finds credible plaintiffs’ counsel’s representations to the court that,

26

although they knew the KTVU story had aired and the online article had published, they were not

27

aware that the story contained confidential-designated information until defense counsel alerted

28

them. The information from the 2019 Internal Investigation airs for 40 seconds in the middle of
25

1

the 5-minute TV broadcast story, and it is discussed almost at the end of the online article that

2

spans 5 pages when printed. (ECF No. 88.4, Buelna Decl. Ex. 3.) The court credits Mr. Pointer’s

3

on-record statements at the hearing that he did not discuss the gun engraving in his interview with

4

KTVU or link it to the movie.19 Mr. Pointer’s social media marketing of his firm’s work by

5

posting links to the story shortly after it aired—one of which shows that he did watch at least

6

some of the TV broadcast—do not conclusively establish that he knew the 2019 Internal

7

Investigation was discussed in the story. The court gets the distinct impression that plaintiffs’

8

counsel are busy running their new small firm, formed while this litigation was ongoing, juggling

9

multiple ongoing cases, and would easily opt to watch or read only a portion of a story about one

10

of their cases—pausing only to make sure the public hears about their successes. Thus, plaintiffs’

11

counsel’s failure to self-correct their the Protective Order violation does not require stiff

12

sanctions.

13

The court also finds that plaintiffs’ counsel acted much more responsibly than counsel in

14

Harmon in their efforts to mitigate the disclosure once they did realize it. Once defense counsel

15

brought the matter to their attention, plaintiffs’ counsel responded rapidly and within 24 hours

16

had emailed both media outlets known to have published the confidential-designated information

17

to request immediate retractions or edits to the story. Mr. Buelna followed the process outlined in

18

the Protective Order for remedying inadvertent disclosures, albeit with some prompting from

19

defense counsel as to certain technicalities, like sending the media outlets the Agreement to be

20

Bound. (See ECF No. 81.10 at 3-6, Buelna Decl. Ex. 8; ECF No. 81.8 at 13, Buelna Decl. Ex. 6.)

21

Mr. Buelna took his request up to KTVU management, which ultimately turned him down, and he

22

followed up with another email to The West Australian when he received no response. Plaintiffs’

23

counsel searched for other media outlets that might have picked up the story as well but found

24

none. The court’s own internet searches reveal no other currently available coverage of the 2019

25

Internal Investigation (aside from the ABC News article inspired by the Whitney suit). All these

26

efforts place plaintiffs’ counsel in significantly better standing than plaintiff’s counsel in Harmon

27
28

19

The court cannot credit the statements in the declaration filed at ECF No. 81.1, which is signed
by Mr. Buelna, but clearly refers to the conduct and knowledge of Mr. Pointer.
26

1

who apparently made no attempts to have news outlets take their stories down. See 323 F.R.D.

2

at 621, 627 (noting that, aside from having their client take down the YouTube video, plaintiffs’

3

counsel “seemingly did little else to adhere to the protective order’s terms” after noticing the

4

disclosure).

5

All that said, the court agrees with defendants that plaintiffs’ counsel have not appeared

6

particularly remorseful in their communications with opposing counsel or in their briefing to the

7

court, after learning of their Protective Order violations. Despite acknowledging that much of the

8

information in the KTVU story—including actual footage of confidential-designated testimony—

9

came directly from them, plaintiffs’ counsel primarily have looked to deflect blame and accuse

10

defendants of wrongdoing, in turn. The court understands some degree of defensiveness when

11

met with a motion for such staggering sanctions, especially between counsel who regularly

12

oppose each other in highly charged civil rights cases. All counsel would be better served,

13

however, by lowering the temperature when possible by acknowledging their own wrongdoing,

14

even if accidental. To their credit, plaintiffs’ counsel do apologize for not initially filing the

15

confidential-designated testimony under seal. (ECF No. 81 at 18.) At the hearing, Mr. Pointer

16

and Mr. Buelna fully acknowledged that they made a significant mistake. And the court does not

17

see fit to increase plaintiffs’ counsels’ sanctions in this case just because their communications

18

with opposing counsel did not strike quite the right tone.

19

i. Return of Settlement Fee

20

In that vein, the court finds that ordering plaintiffs’ counsel to return their settlement fee

21

would be disproportionate under the circumstances. As the court has concluded that the instant

22

violations were unwitting, there is little need for such a significant deterrent sanction. It is not as

23

though plaintiffs’ counsel have flouted the Protective Order in some flagrant fashion. The court

24

is convinced that Mr. Buelna believed he was simply passing along to the media information that

25

was already publicly available. That does not evince a disregard for the court’s Protective Order

26

necessitating swift deterrence against repetition. The court cannot agree with defendants’

27

characterization that plaintiffs “appear to have attempted to profit off of” the violation. (See ECF

28

No. 80 at 20-21.) As discussed, Mr. Pointer’s social media posts advertise his work on the case
27

1

generally, and do not in any way highlight the confidential-designated testimony about the 2019

2

Internal Investigation specifically. And the court feels confident that, with this being Mr.

3

Pointer’s first enforced violation of a protective order in his 15 years of practice, he and his firm

4

are unlikely to repeat their mistake.

5

ii. Compensatory Sanctions to Defendant McMahon

6

Defendant McMahon seeks $250,000 in monetary sanctions to compensate for the

7

emotional damage he has suffered following the KTVU story’s publication of the 2019 Internal

8

Investigation details. The court has considered the one-page supporting declaration provided by

9

McMahon, the details of which are not discussed here, as the document will remain under seal.

10

(ECF No. 80.2.) In addition to McMahon’s personal averments, defense counsel declares that

11

there have been “numerous” social media posts “threatening Officer McMahon’s life” since the

12

KTVU story aired. (ECF No. 80.3, Konz Decl. ¶ 17.) Defendants provide one example of such a

13

post: a comment on Mr. Pointer’s first Facebook post sharing the KTVU article, in which the

14

author writes “CELL OR CASKET!,” followed by 100% emojis. (ECF No. 80.3 at 36, Ex. E.)

15

The court does not doubt that McMahon has experienced the difficult things described in

16

his declaration. However, there is insufficient evidence that it was plaintiffs’ counsel’s sharing of

17

the confidential-designated testimony that caused these harms. Aside from that one Facebook

18

comment—which does not strike the court as a death threat, per se—and the general timing of

19

McMahon’s other emotional harms, there is nothing linking the KTVU story to his present

20

difficulties. Only weeks before the KTVU story was published, McMahon was fired from the

21

VPD, spurring a resurgence of unfavorable reporting about him. Before that, the media

22

scrutinized his actions in the shootings of Foster and McCoy while covering the City’s agreement

23

to settle this case for a record-setting sum. And since the KTVU article, the independent

24

reporting of the Whitney suit has brought attention back to those events, and the 2019 Internal

25

Investigation specifically. Under these circumstances, it is impossible for the court to quantify

26

how much of McMahon’s emotional harm stems from the overall public awareness of this

27

multimillion-dollar settlement and his history of shootings, versus plaintiffs’ counsel’s media

28

disclosure. See Harmon, 323 F.R.D. at 627.
28

1

Even assuming McMahon’s emotional harm did stem entirely from the KTVU story, it is

2

unclear that the contents of the story were entirely drawn from plaintiffs’ counsel’s disclosure.

3

The court finds credible plaintiffs’ counsel’s representations to the court that the photograph of

4

McMahon’s gun engraving included in the KTVU story did not come from them. That KTVU

5

had multiple sources for its October 20th story further detracts from requiring plaintiffs’ counsel

6

to compensate for whatever harm the story may have caused McMahon. Accordingly, the court

7

will not award the requested compensatory sanctions. See Nat’l Med. Enterprises, Inc., 792 F.2d

8

at 910 (“a compensatory award is limited to the actual losses sustained as a result of the

9

contumacy”) (emphasis added).

10
11

iii. Attorney’s Fees
This leaves defendants’ request for an award of some $27,275 for their attorney’s fees

12

incurred in bringing this sanctions motion. (ECF No. 80.3, Konz Decl., Ex. G.) Although

13

sanctions are warranted for plaintiffs’ counsel’s admitted negligence in violating the Protective

14

Order on two occasions, the court finds it more proportionate under the circumstances of the

15

violations to award defendants the reduced amount of $14,000—approximately half of the

16

requested fees (the rates and hours for which the court finds reasonable).

17

As explained above, plaintiffs’ counsel breached the Protective Order with far less

18

awareness of what they were disclosing than was true of the violators in cases where greater

19

attorney’s fees have been awarded. See Harmston v. City & Cty. of San Francisco, 2007 WL

20

3306526, at *5-7 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 6, 2007) (awarding $24,407 where plaintiff’s counsel provided

21

deposition to media one day after deposition where the parties debated the confidential

22

designation); Harmon, 323 F.R.D. at 627 (awarding $69,756). Moreover, both before and after

23

the Protective Order violations, much of the same disclosed information was already known to

24

parties outside of this litigation. Because plaintiffs’ counsel were not particularly culpable in

25

disclosing the information, and because the impact of their disclosure cannot be fairly assessed

26

amidst the surrounding public awareness of the 2019 Internal Investigation, the court finds a

27

reduced attorney’s fees award appropriate. An award of $14,000 is still significant enough to

28

serve as a reminder of counselors’ duty to exercise the utmost caution in handling sensitive
29

1

discovery material with a protective order in place, especially when that material is being

2

provided to the media. And the undersigned is confident that such an award will also convey to

3

these and other litigants how seriously the court takes any breach of a court-approved protective

4

order.

5

B. Plaintiffs’ Motion for Sanctions

6

Plaintiffs ask the court to sanction defendants under Rule 37 for their own purported

7

Protective Order violations, and under Rule 11 for bringing what plaintiffs deem to be

8

unmeritorious and bad faith motions for sanctions and sealing. (ECF No. 88.) Plaintiffs ask the

9

court to (1) hold defendants in civil contempt, (2) refer defense counsel for discipline, and

10

(3) award attorney’s fees and costs incurred in opposing defendants’ motions and bringing their

11

own sanctions motion. (Id. at 14, 17.) Plaintiffs accuse defendants of “hijack[ing]” the court’s

12

discovery enforcement mechanism to malevolently intimidate and harass them for bringing civil

13

rights suits against the City and its police officers—and of concealing evidence and defrauding

14

the court in the process. (Id. at 3.) As with defendants’ motion, the court finds these assertions

15

overblown.

16

Plaintiffs seek sanctions under Rule 37 for four purported Protective Order violations by

17

defendants—many of which overlap with their arguments asserted in opposition to defendants’

18

sanctions motion. (Id. at 10-14.) First, plaintiffs argue that defendants violated the Protective

19

Order by improperly designating as confidential all of the 2019 Internal Investigation material

20

when it was produced/disclosed during discovery. The Protective Order requires “restraint and

21

care” in designating material for protection, requiring the designator to “limit any such

22

designation to specific material that qualifies” as protected. (ECF No. 21 ¶ 5.1.) The designator

23

“must designate for protection only those parts of material, documents, items, or oral or written

24

communications that qualify – so that other portions of the material, documents, items, or

25

communications for which protection is not warranted are not swept unjustifiably within the

26

ambit of this Order.” (Id.) Designations “shown to be clearly unjustified or that have been made

27

for an improper purpose . . . expose the Designating Party to sanctions.” (Id.) If the designator

28

learns that confidential-designated material does not qualify for protection, the party must
30

1
2

promptly “withdraw[] the mistaken designation.” (Id.)
Plaintiffs argue that, when producing the material in mid-2019, and certainly by the time

3

of the February 2020 deposition, defendants knew certain facts underlying the 2019 Internal

4

Investigation were already known by at least the journalist who submitted the April 2019 PRA

5

Requests: namely, that (1) McMahon’s gun displayed a Veritas Aequitas etching, and (2) there

6

was an internal affairs investigation into it. (ECF No. 92 at 3-4.) They argue that these facts

7

were in the public domain and beyond the scope of the Protective Order, and that defendants

8

violated the Protective Order by designating the entire 2019 Internal Investigation file (and

9

ensuing deposition testimony) confidential—rather than designating only the portions not already

10

in the public domain. The court finds the PRA Requests’ existence too flimsy a basis to establish

11

that these facts were publicly known or that their confidential designation was therefore

12

sanctionable under the Protective Order. Moreover, there is no evidence that defense counsel,

13

defendant McMahon, or a City representative affirmatively knew, when the designation was

14

being asserted, that this information was public knowledge. The designation was not “clearly

15

unjustified” or asserted for an “improper purpose,” so even assuming a Protective Order violation,

16

the initial designation was not sanctionable. (See ECF No. 21 ¶ 5.1.)

17

Nor was it a sanctionable violation of the Protective Order for defendants to refuse to

18

withdraw their instant motions after plaintiffs’ counsel informed them of the PRA Requests

19

discussed in the Whitney complaint—what plaintiffs assert as the fourth violation of the

20

Protective Order. Although by that point defendants and counsel certainly knew about the PRA

21

Requests, the court still does not find it unjustifiable or improper for defendants to maintain their

22

instant motions to seal and for sanctions based on plaintiffs’ undisputed disclosure of the

23

surrounding confidential-designated information.

24

As a second ground for sanctions, plaintiffs argue that it also violated the Protective Order

25

for defendants to maintain and defend the confidential designation through the instant motions,

26

without acknowledging their failure to object to the public filing of Exhibit 8. This essentially

27

reasserts the waiver argument advanced in plaintiffs’ sanctions opposition brief, which the court

28

again rejects. Failing to object to the public filing of an exhibit that contains, buried within it,
31

1

uncited-to confidential-designated video footage does not waive a party’s right to challenge that

2

conduct as violating the protective order upon discovery of the disclosure. And defendants’

3

motion addressed above is precisely the way to enforce the terms of a court-approved protective

4

order while the case is open. As defendants aptly put it, “[f]iling a Rule 37 motion because

5

protected discovery material was released to the media is not a Rule 37 violation.” (ECF No. 90

6

at 12.)

7

Plaintiffs’ third and best argument for a Protective Order violation is based on defendants’

8

refusal to withdraw the instant motions after the Whitney complaint was filed and after the

9

December 24, 2020 ABC News article discussed the complaint and the 2019 Internal

10

Investigation. Like the argument about the PRA Requests, plaintiffs contend that these public

11

documents “placed the entirety of information [defendants] asserted confidential independently

12

into the public domain.” (ECF No. 88 at 12.) The Protective Order not only exempts from its

13

scope information already in the public domain at the time of disclosure, but also any information

14

that “becomes part of the public domain after its disclosure to a Receiving Party as a result of

15

publication not involving a violation of this Order.” (ECF No. 21 ¶ 3.) The Whitney suit, while

16

covering certain events also implicated in this case, is an independent legal action in which

17

plaintiffs’ counsel are not involved. And plaintiffs’ counsel had nothing to do with the ABC

18

News coverage of Whitney’s complaint and his interview statements.

19

The court finds these December 2020 Whitney publications highly probative in resolving

20

the request to seal, but less so in establishing a Protective Order violation. Contrary to plaintiffs’

21

assertion—and as discussed several times now with plaintiffs’ other claims of pre-existing public

22

awareness—these publications did not place “the entirety” of the 2019 Internal Investigation in

23

the public domain. They contain several details from that investigation—some apparently

24

disclosed by one of McMahon’s own attorneys—but there remain other aspects of McMahon’s

25

confidential-designated testimony not announced in the Whitney complaint or article. And, in

26

any event, these recent publications would not erase plaintiffs’ counsel’s original Protective Order

27

violations, providing defendants a legitimate basis for seeking Rule 37 sanctions—no matter the

28

present state of the information at issue.
32

Perhaps acknowledging this limitation, plaintiffs’ same motion also requests sanctions

1
2

under Rule 11, contending that defendants’ instant motions are unmeritorious, were filed for an

3

improper purpose, and that defendants are withholding contradictory evidence to the court in

4

pursuing them. (ECF No. 88 at 14-17.) However, Rule 11 does not apply to discovery matters,

5

such as enforcing the terms of a protective order via a Rule 37 motion. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(d)

6

(“This rule does not apply to disclosures and discovery requests, responses, objections, and

7

motions under Rules 26 through 37.”) (emphasis added). Even assuming Rule 11 applies to

8

requests to seal discovery-related motions, the court finds defendants’ request to seal nonfrivolous

9

and not presented for an improper purpose—although the court is not prepared to grant that

10

request in full.20 Accordingly, the court finds no sanctions warranted against defendants, under

11

either Rule 37 or Rule 11.
In their opposition to plaintiffs’ cross-motion for sanctions, defendants request that the

12
13

court award them $6,472.00 in attorney’s fees, as the prevailing party in plaintiffs’ fruitless

14

Rule 11 motion. (ECF No. 90 at 19-20.) See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c)(2) (“If warranted, the court

15

may award to the prevailing party the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred for

16

the motion.”). Because the court finds Rule 11 inapplicable to the subject motions regarding a

17

discovery violation, Rule 11(c)(2) is not an available basis for awarding further attorney’s fees.

18

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(d).

19

C. Defendants’ Request to Seal

20

Finally, the court turns to defendants’ request to seal the entire briefing of their motion for

21

sanctions. On January 11, 2021, the undersigned provisionally granted defendants’ request to

22

seal—and subsequently extended that grant to cover the briefing of plaintiffs’ cross-motion for

23

sanctions as well. (ECF Nos. 79, 80.4, 87.) The court explained that defendants’ initial request to

24

preemptively seal all papers was improper and insufficiently supported; but the court allowed

25

defendants to provide additional support for the request in further briefing, noting that there “may

26
27
28

Plaintiffs also did not comply with Rule 11’s procedural requirements that a Rule 11 sanctions
motion be “made separately from any other motion,” and “be served” on the party to be
sanctioned. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c)(2).
33
20

1

be good cause to seal at least portions of certain materials.” (ECF No. 79 at 2-3.) The court

2

urged defendants to “tailor their request to seal to the specific documents, exhibits, and portions

3

of the briefing that reveal the information they maintain is entitled to protection from public

4

view,” and ordered defendants to “address why good cause exists with respect to sealing each

5

specific document” sought to be sealed. (Id. at 3.)

6

Defendants filed their further briefing in support of their request to seal (ECF No. 85), to

7

which plaintiffs have filed a surreply (ECF No. 86), in addition to their briefs opposing the initial

8

request to seal (ECF Nos. 82-83). In light of the quantity of information from the contested

9

deposition testimony that is now publicly available, and the incomplete nature of defendants’

10

request to seal, the court finds that only one of the currently sealed documents should remain

11

under seal.

12

1. Legal Standard

13

“[T]here is a ‘strong presumption in favor of access’ to information filed with a court.” In

14

re Roman Catholic Archbishop of Portland in Oregon, 661 F.3d 417, 429 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting

15

Kamakana v. City and Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006)). In general, to

16

overcome the presumption, a party seeking to seal judicial records must demonstrate not just

17

“good cause,” but “compelling reasons.” Id. (citations omitted). “Despite this strong preference

18

for public access,” the Ninth Circuit has “carved out an exception for sealed materials attached to

19

a discovery motion unrelated to the merits of a case.” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC,

20

809 F.3d 1092, 1097 (9th Cir. 2016) (cleaned up). When this exception applies, a party seeking

21

to file under seal “need only satisfy the less exacting ‘good cause’ standard” found in Rule 26(c).

22

Id.; see Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1) (stating that a court “may, for good cause, issue an order to

23

protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or

24

expense”). The documents defendants wish to remain filed under seal are all offered as part of, or

25

in support of, the instant non-dispositive, post-settlement motions for sanctions for violating the

26

Protective Order approved by this court. Thus, as determined in the court’s provisional grant

27

////

28

////
34

1

order, defendants must demonstrate good cause for filing these documents under seal.21 See

2

Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 599 (1978) (decisions on public access are “best

3

left to the sound discretion of the trial court, a discretion to be exercised in light of the relevant

4

facts and circumstances of the particular case).

5

To establish good cause, first, the party seeking protection (here, defendants, seeking

6

permission to keep these filings under seal) must show that “specific prejudice or harm will

7

result,” absent sealing. See Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th

8

Cir. 2003). “Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples or articulated

9

reasoning, do not satisfy the Rule 26(c) test.” Beckman Industries, Inc. v. International Ins. Co.,

10

966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992). “A party asserting good cause bears the burden, for each

11

particular document it seeks to protect, of showing that specific prejudice or harm will result if no

12

protective order is granted.” Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1130. This court’s local rules echo these

13

principles by requiring requests to seal to “describe generally the documents sought to be sealed,

14

the basis for sealing,” and the “statutory or other authority for sealing,” among other things. E.D.

15

Cal. R. 141(b).

16

Second, if the court concludes that denying protection will cause particularized harm, it

17

must balance “the public and private interests” to decide whether protection is necessary. Roman

18

Catholic, 661 F.3d at 424. The Ninth Circuit has instructed district courts to conduct this

19

balancing under the factors identified in Glenmede Trust Co. v. Thompson, 56 F.3d 476, 483 (3d

20

Cir. 1995). See Roman Catholic, 661 F.3d at 424. But even when both analytical steps weigh in

21

favor of protecting the material “a court must still consider whether redacting portions of the

22

discovery material will nevertheless allow disclosure.” Id. at 425.

23

2. Analysis

24

Given the dual layers of confidentiality asserted across the three motions, the court first

25
26
27
28

Although there may be some basis for viewing these motions as “more than tangentially related
to the underlying cause of action,” Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1099, plaintiffs have not
argued that the more stringent “compelling reasons” standard applies, and given that no live
causes of action remain in this case (all claims having been settled), the court only applies the
“good cause” standard.
35
21

1

clarifies that its analysis here is limited to whether the filings surrounding the instant motions

2

should remain under seal—not the filing status of the original Exhibit 8 video testimony

3

supporting the summary judgment motion. This distinction is important because the information

4

defendants wish to keep off the public record in these motions is narrower in scope (though more

5

broadly scattered) than the information disclosed in the full 8 minutes of confidential-designated

6

testimony in Exhibit 8. Defendants are now concerned only with preventing additional public

7

awareness of the details of the 2019 Internal Investigation.

8

i. No Specific Prejudice or Harm from Public Filing
Defendants’ further briefing in support of their request to seal spans a total of five pages

9
10

and does not address all of the 50-plus documents currently filed under seal in connection with

11

the instant motions. (ECF No. 85.) Defendants assert the same prejudice or harm for almost all

12

the documents addressed: that the original Protective Order violations discussed above already

13

caused McMahon the emotional damage described in his Rule 37 sanctions declaration, and

14

harmed the City by undercutting its promises of confidentiality in conducting internal

15

investigations. They argue that public filing of these motions and supporting papers will cause

16

additional harm “because it will draw more public attention to the protected material and create

17

an additional conduit for public access to the protected material.” (Id. at 3.)

18

The first problem for defendants is that almost all—if not all—of the 2019 Internal

19

Investigation details they claim should still be protected are now firmly in the public domain. Not

20

only have the original KTVU video broadcast and article remained accessible on the original two

21

media outlets since October 2020, but the Whitney complaint and ABC News article have since

22

come out with the same information about the 2019 Internal Investigation—which is front and

23

center in the ABC News article and video (ECF No. 83.2). Most recently, in the separate McCoy

24

litigation, plaintiffs—also represented by Pointer & Buelna—publicly filed an opposition brief

25

again discussing the engraving and other facts from the 2019 Internal Investigation and attaching

26

the Whitney complaint and ABC News article.22 (No. 2:19-cv-01191, ECF No. 55, filed Jan. 26,

27
28

22

The City and McMahon, who are also represented by the same counsel as in this case,
acknowledged that discussion in their reply brief, and have not moved to seal plaintiffs’
36

1

2021.) Against the backdrop of these public discussions of the same information sought to be

2

sealed here, the court is unconvinced of the need to block an “additional conduit” for public

3

access.

4

This raises the related problem that defendants’ request to seal is aimed at protecting

5

general categories of information originating from the 2019 Internal Investigation—as well as

6

attorney argument about that information—as opposed to protecting specific documents or

7

portions of documents. It will take much more than the fear of ongoing media coverage,

8

especially of information already publicly available, for the court to seal from public view an

9

entire course of civil motions briefing. See Does I thru XXIII v. Advanced Textile Corp., 214

10

F.3d 1058, 1067 (9th Cir. 2000) (acknowledging “public’s common law right of access to judicial

11

proceedings”).

12

Nevertheless, in granting provisional filing under seal, the court remained open to the

13

possibility that while briefing the nature of the alleged Protective Order violations, certain

14

documents might be filed or discussed that would reveal sensitive information deserving of

15

protection. (ECF No. 79.) Defendant McMahon’s declaration turns out to be one such document.

16

(ECF No. 80.2.) Unsealing the one-page personal declaration would expose highly private

17

matters—such as McMahon’s health, medical treatment, and religious views—without serving

18

any arguable public interest. That document shall remain under seal.

19

The court also was open to the idea that “portions of the briefing” might warrant

20

protection. (ECF No. 79 at 3.) Defendants have never proposed redacting any parts of the

21

briefs—as opposed to sealing them in toto—nor have they explained why redaction is not a

22

satisfactory option. Cf. Roman Catholic, 661 F.3d at 425 (courts must “consider whether

23

redacting portions of the discovery material will nevertheless allow disclosure”). The court will

24

not take it upon itself to review and redact the 50-plus documents now filed in these motions.

25
26

Moreover, defendants fail to assert any argument for keeping under seal multiple filings
that contain or reference the same information identified as harmful in the filings that they do

27
28

opposition there. (No. 2:19-cv-01191, ECF No. 56 at 2, 7, filed Feb. 2, 2021.)
37

1

address in their further briefing. For instance, defendants do not assert any argument for sealing

2

(a) plaintiffs’ opposition to their request to seal or its attachments (ECF Nos. 82, 82.1-82.3);

3

(b) plaintiffs’ supplemental brief opposing the request to seal or its attachments (ECF Nos. 83-

4

83.3); or (c) defendants’ further brief itself (ECF No. 85). All these briefs, and several of the

5

attachments, contain references and information that defendants cite as objectionable in other

6

filings. Plaintiffs’ opposition to defendants’ request to seal (ECF No. 82) refers to McMahon’s

7

“vigilante motto” throughout and asserts that it was based on a problematic movie reference;

8

plaintiffs’ supplemental opposition alerting the court to the Whitney complaint attaches the ABC

9

News article as an exhibit along with an email exchange referencing McMahon’s emotional

10

distress and highlighting the most relevant quotes from the article (ECF Nos. 83, 83.2, 83.3); and

11

defendants’ own further brief refers to an internal investigation of whether McMahon “had

12

violated policy by engraving a religious symbol on his firearm” and discusses the KTVU

13

broadcast “liken[ing] Officer McMahon to a vigilante murderer akin to characters from a

14

Hollywood movie (Boondock Saints)” (ECF No. 85 at 2).

15

The court specifically directed defendants to “address why good cause exists with respect

16

to sealing each specific document.” (ECF No. 79 at 3.) Defendants have not done so. Without

17

any argument that the above filings should be sealed, the court cannot keep them under seal. See

18

Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1130 (“A party asserting good cause bears the burden, for each particular

19

document it seeks to protect, of showing that specific prejudice or harm will result if no protective

20

order is granted.”) (emphasis added); E.D. Cal. R. 141(b) (requiring requests to seal to include,

21

inter alia, description of “the documents sought to be sealed, [and] the basis for sealing”). The

22

court will not give defendants yet another opportunity to show good cause for the unaddressed

23

documents. See Bangert v. Cty. of Placer, 2019 WL 358518, at *14 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 29, 2019) (no

24

good cause for granting defendants another opportunity to adequately plead their case for sealing

25

or redaction, after initial order directing further briefing set forth the relevant legal standards).

26

The forthcoming unsealing of these unaddressed documents provides another reason to unseal the

27

remaining documents (which defendants do address) that contain and discuss the same

28

information. Defendants presented the court with a sweeping request to seal all papers connected
38

1

with their motion. They have not carried their burden to justify sealing the many, many

2

documents ultimately filed.

3

The court notes that the filings about to be unsealed do not contain any new information

4

not already publicly available, nor do they contain actual documents from McMahon’s personnel

5

file. For the most part, these filings consist of (1) online articles commentary and (2) legal

6

arguments about the information at issue—whether found in the briefs themselves, or in the

7

attorneys’ informal communications to each other. Of course, by ordering these documents

8

unsealed, the court takes no position on the accuracy of any party’s representations as to the

9

endplate’s meaning. The point is, the debate about the consequences of its disclosure should be

10

public.

11

CONCLUSION

12

For these reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

13

1. Plaintiffs’ motion to strike defendants’ motion for sanctions (ECF No. 82) is DENIED;

14

2. Defendants’ motion for sanctions (ECF No. 80) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN

15
16

PART:
a. Patrick Buelna, Adanté Pointer, and Pointer & Buelna LLP are jointly and

17

severally ORDERED to pay $14,000 in defendants’ attorney’s fees;

18

b. These sanctions must be paid within 30 days of the entry of this order;

19

3. Plaintiffs’ motion for sanctions (ECF No. 88) is DENIED; and

20

4. Defendants’ request to seal (ECF Nos. 78, 80.4) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN

21
22

PART:
a. The Clerk of Court shall UNSEAL all documents filed in connection with the

23

request to seal and the cross-motions for sanctions, except for the Declaration of

24

Ryan McMahon submitted in support of defendants’ motion for sanctions (ECF

25

No. 80.2);

26

b. The Clerk is directed to modify the docket titles of the following documents as:

27

i. ECF No. 80, Motion for Sanctions and Civil Contempt by All Defendants;

28

ii. ECF No. 80.4, Request to Seal by All Defendants;
39

iii. ECF No. 81, Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Sanctions [80] by R.F.,

1
2

Paula McGowan, and Ronell Foster, Sr.;

3

iv. ECF No. 82, Opposition to Defendants’ Request to Seal [80.4] and Motion

4

to Strike Defendants’ Motion for Sanctions [80] by R.F., Paula McGowan,

5

and Ronell Foster, Sr.;
v. ECF No. 83, Supplemental Brief in Opposition to Defendants’ Request to

6
7

Seal [80.4] by R.F., Paula McGowan, and Ronell Foster, Sr.;
vi. ECF No. 84, Reply in Support of Defendants’ Motion for Sanctions [80] by

8
9

All Defendants;
vii. ECF No. 85, Further Briefing in Support of Defendants’ Request to Seal

10
11

[80.4] by All Defendants;
viii. ECF No. 86, Surreply in Opposition to Defendants’ Request to Seal [80.4]

12
13

by R.F., Paula McGowan, and Ronell Foster, Sr.;

14

ix. ECF No. 88, Motion for Sanctions and Civil Contempt by R.F., Paula

15

McGowan, and Ronell Foster, Sr.;
x. ECF No. 90, Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Sanctions [88] by All

16
17

Defendants;
xi. ECF No. 92, Reply in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Sanctions [88] by

18
19

R.F., Paula McGowan, and Ronell Foster, Sr.

20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 16, 2021

_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

22
23
24
25
19.if.0673

26
27
28
40