Velarde et al v. City of Union City et al

Filing 47

Order by Hon. James Donato temporarily denying 43 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal. (jdlc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/21/2015)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

AARON VELARDE, et al.,

Case No. 13-cv-04011-JD

Plaintiffs,
8
v.

ORDER RE MOTION TO SEAL

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

UNION CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, et
al.,

Re: Dkt. No. 43

Defendants.
On October 14, 2015, plaintiffs filed an administrative motion to seal four declaration

13

exhibits, all filed in support of plaintiffs’ opposition to defendants’ motion for summary judgment

14

(Dkt. No. 33). See Dkt. No. 43 (requesting to seal exhibits G and J to the declaration of Jannik

15

Catalano (Dkt. No. 43-5) and Exhibits C and D to the Andy Falco Jimenez declaration (Dkt. No.

16

43-6). The exhibits contain copies of Union City Police Department policies. Plaintiffs asked the

17

Court to seal the documents because they “contain[] and refer[] to confidential information

18

concerning Defendants’ internal policies,” and “are designated ‘CONFIDENTIAL’ under the

19

terms of the protective order entered by the Court.” Dkt. No. 43-1 at ¶¶ 2-5. On October 19,

20

2015, defendants filed a declaration in support of sealing the documents largely on the same

21

grounds. Dkt. No. 45 at ¶¶ 3-4.

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

The Court cannot grant the request to seal on the current papers submitted by the parties.
In our circuit, a “strong presumption of access to judicial records” applies to “dispositive
pleadings, including motions for summary judgment and related attachments.” Kamakana v. City
& Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006). This presumption reflects the policy
that “the resolution of a dispute on the merits, whether by trial or summary judgment, is at the
heart of the interest in ensuring the ‘public’s understanding of the judicial process and of
significant public events.’” Id. (quoting Valley Broadcasting Co. v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 798 F.2d 1289,

1

1294 (9th Cir. 1986)). Accordingly, “compelling reasons” must be shown to justify sealing

2

documents filed in connection with a dispositive motion, even if the documents were previously

3

filed under seal or disseminated under a blanket protective order. Id. at 1179, 1182.

4

The parties have not shown “compelling reasons” to seal the four exhibits. It is not enough

5

that the documents were marked “confidential” under the terms of a stipulated protective order in

6

this case, or that they contain “internal policies” of the police. See id. at 1185 (“We do not readily

7

add classes of documents to this category simply because such documents are usually or often

8

deemed confidential … Simply invoking a blanket claim, such as privacy or law enforcement, will

9

not, without more, suffice to exempt a document from the public’s right of access”).

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

Consequently, the Court temporarily denies the motion to seal. Defendants may file a
supplemental declaration no later than Monday, October 26, 2015, stating the compelling reasons
they believe warrant sealing. If a supplemental declaration is filed, the Court will take those
arguments under submission. If no supplemental declaration is filed, plaintiffs may file the
documents in the public record on or after October 28, 2015.
The Court advises the parties that it will deny any pending or future motion for sealing of
summary judgment documents that does not comply with governing law. See, e.g., Dkt. No. 46
(pending motion to file under seal).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 21, 2015

20
________________________
JAMES DONATO
United States District Judge

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2