Sandoval et al v. County of Sonoma et al

Filing 231

ORDER by Judge Thelton E. Henderson granting in part and denying in part 225 motion for leave to file documents in the public record; denying 226 administrative motion to file under seal. (tehlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/12/2015)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4

RAFAEL MATEOS SANDOVAL, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

5

v.

6
7

COUNTY OF SONOMA, et al.,
Defendants.

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No. 11-cv-05817-TEH
ORDER GRANTING IN PART
PLAINTIFF’S ADMINISTRATIVE
MOTION TO FILE DOCUMENTS IN
THE PUBLIC RECORD; DENYING
PLAINTIFF’S ADMINISTRATIVE
MOTION TO FILE DOCUMENTS
UNDER SEAL; DENYING
DEFENDANT’S CROSS-MOTION
TO REMOVE DOCUMENTS FROM
THE PUBLIC RECORD

12
13

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Sandoval’s administrative motion to file

14

documents in the public record and related administrative motion to file documents under

15

seal. Docket Nos. 225, 226. These documents relate to Sandoval’s opposition to

16

Defendant Sheriff Freitas’s motion for summary judgment. See Mot. (Docket No. 216);

17

Opp’n (Docket No. 219). For the reasons set forth below, the Court finds that the

18

documents submitted contemporaneously with Plaintiff’s opposition should remain in the

19

public record. However, the documents filed contemporaneously with Plaintiff’s

20

administrative motions will not be considered and should not be filed, under seal or

21

otherwise. The Court therefore GRANTS IN PART Plaintiff’s motion to permit

22

documents to be filed in the public record, DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to file documents

23

under seal, and DENIES Defendant’s cross-motion to remove documents from the public

24

record.

25
26
27
28

BACKGROUND
On December 15, 2014, Defendant Freitas filed a motion for summary judgment
based on his qualified immunity for the remaining claim against him in his personal

1

capacity. On December 29, Sandoval filed a timely opposition, along with supporting

2

evidence, including deposition testimony of Deputy Eric Smith. However, one day later,

3

Sandoval filed additional objections to Sheriff Freitas’s evidence, and included a portion of

4

an investigative file as an exhibit. Docket No. 221. Both the deposition testimony and the

5

investigative file are covered by a Protective Order entered on July 17, 2014, and Sheriff

6

Freitas objected accordingly in his reply. Reply at 15 (Docket No. 223); Keck Supp. Decl.

7

at 2-3 (Docket No. 223-1); see also Protective Order (Docket No. 162).

8
9

On January 7, 2015, Sandoval filed an administrative motion to file evidence in the
public record, as well as an administrative motion to file the evidence under seal for the
purposes of considering the former administrative motion. Rather than limit these

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

administrative motions to those portions of the deposition testimony and investigative file

12

already submitted, however, Sandoval also included additional deposition testimony of

13

Sheriff Freitas and significantly more content from the investigative file in his request.

14

Admin. Mot. at 2.

15

On January 9, Sheriff Freitas responded in opposition to both of the pending

16

administrative motions. Docket Nos. 227, 228. Sheriff Freitas also moved to have the

17

documents that were filed in violation of the Protective Order removed from the public

18

record. Freitas Admin. Opp’n at 4-5 (Docket No. 228).

19
20
21

DISCUSSION
There is “a strong presumption in favor of [public] access when deciding whether to

22

seal records.” Apple Inc. v. Pystar Corp., 658 F.3d 1150, 1162 (9th Cir. 2011). This

23

strong presumption “applies fully to dispositive pleadings, including motions for summary

24

judgment and related attachments . . . because the resolution of a dispute on the merits . . .

25

is at the heart of the interest in ensuring the ‘public’s understanding of the judicial process

26

and of significant public events.’” Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d

27

1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2004) (quoting Valley Broadcasting Co. v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 798 F.2d

28

1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1986)).
2

1

A party seeking to file documents under seal “must articulate compelling reasons

2

supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the general history of access and the

3

public policies favoring disclosure . . . .” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178-79 (internal

4

alteration and citation omitted). “The ‘compelling reasons’ standard is invoked even if the

5

dispositive motion, or its attachments, were previously filed under seal or protective

6

order.” Id. at 1179.

7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

Nevertheless, parties must respect the terms of a protective order. The Court has a
Standing Order to address this situation:
6. Designating material as “confidential” under a protective
order shall not automatically entitle the material to filing under
seal. Requests to file material under seal must be narrowly
tailored and filed in accordance with Civil Local Rule 79-5.
Before seeking to file under seal any material designated as
“confidential,” counsel shall review the material to make a
good faith determination as to whether the material qualifies as
sealable as defined in Civil Local Rule 79-5(b). If the filing
party has designated the material as “confidential” and counsel
determines that the material need not be filed under seal,
counsel shall remove the “confidential” designation and file the
material in the public record. If the material has been
designated as “confidential” by another party and counsel
determines that the material need not be filed under seal,
counsel shall meet and confer with opposing counsel to attempt
to resolve whether the material may be filed in the public
record; only after meeting and conferring in good faith should
a party file a motion to file any material under seal. The burden
of establishing that any material is sealable rests on the party
seeking to maintain confidentiality.
Civil Standing Order for the Honorable Thelton E. Henderson at 2.
Needless to say, this process was not followed in this case. It is undisputed that

22

Sandoval publicly filed material that Sheriff Freitas had designated “confidential” in

23

support of his opposition, without meeting and conferring to resolve whether the material

24

could be filed in the public record, and without first filing an administrative motion to file

25

the material under seal. Sandoval therefore violated the terms of the Protective Order, and

26

of this Court’s own Standing Orders.

27
28

However, Sandoval’s violations do not change the fact that the burden rests on
Sheriff Freitas to establish that there are compelling reasons to file this material under seal.
3

1

This he has not done. Merely pointing to the Protective Order is not enough. The Court

2

recognizes that the publicly filed material includes the names of certain officers of the

3

Sonoma County Sheriff’s Office, as well as an email summary of the incident at issue in

4

this case. However, Sheriff Freitas has given the Court virtually no justification, much less

5

compelling reasons, to withhold this information from public view. For this reason, the

6

Court will not now order the removal of the evidence from the public record.
Although the Court will not order the removal of this evidence from the public

7

record, neither will the Court consider evidence that was filed late. “The opposition must

9

be filed and served no later than 14 days after the motion was filed,” Civil L.R. 7-3(a),

10

which in this case imposed an opposition deadline of December 29, 2014. Sandoval’s

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

8

separately filed objections to evidence, Docket No. 221, were filed on December 30, which

12

was past the filing deadline. Filing these objections as a separate document also violated

13

the requirement that “[a]ny evidentiary or procedural objections must be contained within

14

the brief or memorandum.” Civil L.R. 7-3(a). As a result, the Court will not consider the

15

objections, nor the evidence submitted therewith.1
Sandoval also filed additional evidence with his administrative motion that he did

16
17

not file with his opposition, including more pages from the investigative file and

18

deposition testimony of Sheriff Freitas. This evidence was late, under both Local Rule 7-

19

3(a), and Local Rule 7-3(d), which states that, “[o]nce a reply is filed, no additional

20

memoranda, papers or letters may be filed without prior Court approval.” The Court will

21

not consider this late-filed evidence.
The Local Rules are not optional. Nor are this Court’s Standing Orders. In the

22
23

future, in order to file information designated “confidential,” the parties must abide by the

24

process set out in the Court’s Standing Orders and Civil Local Rule 79-5, before any such

25
1

26
27
28

The Court recognizes that “[o]nly admissible evidence may be considered in
deciding a motion for summary judgment.” Miller v. Glenn Miller Productions, Inc., 454
F.3d 975, 988 (9th Cir. 2006). The Court will independently review the admissibility of
all of the evidence submitted, as do other courts in this district when similar circumstances
arise. See, e.g., Hennighan v. Insphere Ins. Solutions, Inc., No. 13–cv–00638–WHO, 2014
WL 1600034 at *5-6 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 21, 2014).
4

1

material is filed in the public record. Failure to follow these rules, or the deadline and

2

filing requirements of the Rules and Standing Orders, may result in the summary exclusion

3

of improperly filed evidence or the imposition of monetary sanctions.

4
5
6

CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, Plaintiff’s administrative motion to permit certain
documents to be filed in the public record is GRANTED IN PART as follows: the

8

deposition testimony of Deputy Eric Smith filed as Exhibit D to Cook Decl., Docket No.

9

219-1, and the pages from the investigative file submitted as Exhibit B to Cook Decl.,

10

Docket No. 221, shall remain in the public record. The other documents referred to in

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

7

Plaintiff’s administrative motions shall not be filed in support of Plaintiff’s opposition,

12

publicly or otherwise. Plaintiff’s administrative motion to file documents under seal is

13

DENIED. Defendant’s cross-motion to remove documents from the public record is

14

DENIED.

15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.

17
18
19

Dated: 01/12/15

_____________________________________
THELTON E. HENDERSON
United States District Judge

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

5