Tindle et al v. City of Daly City et al

Filing 133

ORDER by Hon. Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. granting 128 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting 132 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal. (hsglc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/12/2016)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

SAHLEEM TINDLE, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

8
v.

9
10

CITY OF DALY CITY, et al.,

ORDER GRANTING
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO
SEAL
Re: Dkt. Nos. 128,132

Defendants.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 13-cv-02449-HSG

Pending before the Court is Sahleem Tindle’s administrative motion for leave to file

12
13

documents under seal in conjunction with his opposition to the motion to withdraw as counsel,

14

Dkt. No. 128, as well as counsel’s administrative motion to file a reply under seal, Dkt. No. 132.

15

No opposition has been filed to the motions and the time to do so has passed. See Civ. L.R. 7-11.

16

I.

17

LEGAL STANDARD
Courts apply a “compelling reasons” standard when considering motions to seal documents

18

like the ones at issue here. Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010).

19

“This standard derives from the common law right ‘to inspect and copy public records and

20

documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Id. “[A] ‘strong presumption in favor of

21

access’ is the starting point.” Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th

22

Cir. 2006). To overcome this strong presumption, the moving party must “articulate compelling

23

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

24

public policies favoring disclosure, such as the public interest in understanding the judicial

25

process.” Id. at 1178-79 (citations, internal quotation marks, and alterations omitted). “In general,

26

‘compelling reasons’ sufficient to outweigh the public’s interest in disclosure and justify sealing

27

court records exist when such ‘court files might have become a vehicle for improper purposes,’

28

such as the use of records to gratify private spite, promote public scandal, circulate libelous

1

statements, or release trade secrets.” Id. at 1179 (citing Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598). The Court must

2

“balance the competing interests of the public and the party who seeks to keep certain judicial

3

records secret. After considering these interests, if the court decides to seal certain judicial

4

records, it must base its decision on a compelling reason and articulate the factual basis for its

5

ruling, without relying on hypothesis or conjecture.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).

6

Civil Local Rule 79-5 further supplements the compelling reasons standard. The party

7

seeking to file a document or portions of it under seal must “establish[ ] that the document, or

8

portions thereof, are privileged, protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection

9

under the law. . . . The request must be narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable

10

material.” Civil L.R. 79-5(b).
Records attached to motions that are only “tangentially related to the merits of a case” are

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

not subject to the strong presumption of access. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809

13

F.3d 1092, 1101 (9th Cir. 2016). Accordingly, parties moving to seal such records must meet the

14

lower “good cause” standard of Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Id. at 8-9.

15

The “good cause” standard requires a “particularized showing” that “specific prejudice or harm

16

will result” if the information is disclosed. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp.,

17

307 F.3d 1206, 1210–11 (9th Cir. 2002) (internal quotation marks omitted); see Fed. R. Civ. P.

18

26(c).
Because the underlying motion is only “tangentially related to the merits” of the case, the

19
20

Court applies the good cause standard.

21

II.

DISCUSSION
Having reviewed both requests to seal, the Court finds that (1) the Opposition to Notice of

22
23

Motion and Motion to Withdraw as Counsel of Record for Plaintiffs and Declaration of Yolanda

24

Banks-Reed in Support, Dkt. No. 128, and (2) counsel’s Reply in Further Support of the Motion to

25

Withdraw, Dkt. No. 132, contain sealable information, such as attorney-client communications.

26

The Court concludes there is good cause for the parties to file these documents under seal in order

27

to prevent any harm or prejudice by the disclosure of such communications.

28

\\
2

1

Accordingly, the Courts GRANTS the administrative motions to seal, Dkt. Nos. 128, 132.

2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

3

Dated: 2/12/2016

4
5
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge

6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

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