Paredez v. Hedgepeth et al

Filing 27

ORDER DENYING DEFENSE MOTION TO FILE DOCUMENT UNDER SEAL 16 (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 9/10/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

RICHARD PAREDEZ,
Plaintiff,

11
12
13
14
15

No. C 11-3351 SI (pr)
ORDER DENYING DEFENSE
MOTION TO FILE DOCUMENT
UNDER SEAL

v.
ANTHONY HEDGPETH, warden;
et al.,
Defendants.
/

16

This pro se prisoner's civil rights action concerns the response of prison officials at

17

Salinas Valley State Prison to plaintiff's medical needs. One of plaintiff's claims is that

18

defendant Steele allegedly falsified documents to have plaintiff's pain medication discontinued.

19

Defendants have moved for summary judgment. In connection with that motion,

20

defendants have filed an ex parte application for order to seal a confidential supplement to the

21

staff complaint associated with administrative grievance log # 32-10-13570 (the "Supplement").

22

The Supplement summarizes the findings of the Salinas Valley investigative services unit

23

regarding plaintiff's allegations that Steele decreased or changed his medication, or otherwise

24

harassed plaintiff. See Docket # 16, p. 2.

25

The court may order a document filed under seal "upon a request that establishes that the

26

document, or portions thereof is privileged or protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled

27

to protection under the law, [hereinafter referred to as 'sealable.'] The request must be narrowly

28

1

tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material." N. D. Cal. Local Rule 79-5. There is a

2

strong presumption favoring the public's right of access to court records which should be

3

overridden only for a compelling reason. Hagestad v. Tragesser, 49 F.3d 1430, 1433-34 (9th

4

Cir. 1995). "Counseling against such access would be the likelihood of an improper use,

5

'including publication of scandalous, libelous, pornographic, or trade secret materials;

6

infringement of fair trial rights of the defendants or third persons; and residual privacy rights.'"

7

Valley Broadcasting Co. v. United States District Court, 798 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1986)

8

(citation omitted). In prisoner cases, genuine concerns that the release of the document will

9

endanger staff or inmates can support an order sealing a document.

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

Defendants argue that release of the Supplement into the prison population "could

11

endanger the safety and security of other inmates and officers" and would hamper future

12

investigations because "[c]ooperating inmates and staff members will no longer be willing to

13

speak to [a] department investigator for fear that their identities will be disclosed, placing their

14

safety and lives in jeopardy." Docket # 16, p. 2.

15

Upon due consideration of the Supplement, the court disagrees with defendants'

16

assessment of the risk of danger that would flow from making the Supplement public. The

17

Supplement identifies no staff witnesses or inmate witnesses, other than the complaining

18

witness, Paredez. Thus, it does not appear that release of the Supplement would put anyone in

19

danger, or make anyone less likely to cooperate in future investigations. There also does not

20

appear to be any highly sensitive information in the Supplement. The Supplement indicates that

21

the source of the problem was a mistake in the paperwork for plaintiff's medication; however,

22

embarrassment about having one's mistake become publicly known is not an adequate reason

23

to seal the document that describes the mistake. Accordingly, the application to file the

24

Supplement under seal is DENIED. (Docket # 16.)

25

Having decided that the Supplement will not be filed under seal, there remains the issue

26

of what to do with the document. Respondent may retrieve the Supplement within three days

27

of the date of this order. See Local Rule 79-5(d). If respondent does not retrieve the Supplement

28

within three days of the date of this order, the Supplement will be discarded by the court. See
2

1

Local Rule 79-5(e). Defendants "may retain the document and not make it part of the record in

2

the case, or, within 4 days, re-submit the document for filing in the public record." Id.

3
4

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 10, 2012

_______________________
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge

5
6
7
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3