Lawrence v. City and County of San Francisco et al

Filing 116

ORDER by Judge Maria-Elena James granting 115 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal. (mejlc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/4/2017)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 EMIL LAWRENCE, Case No. 14-cv-00820-MEJ Plaintiff, 8 ORDER RE: ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL v. 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, et al., Re: Dkt. No. 115 Defendants. 12 INTRODUCTION 13 14 Pending before the Court is Defendants‟ Motion to Seal Exhibits 5 and 6 to Plaintiff‟s 15 Opposition. Defs.‟ Mot., Dkt. No. 115. On March 31, 2017, the Court denied Plaintiff Emil 16 Lawrence‟s Motion to Seal Exhibits 1-6 to his Opposition on the ground that Defendants did not 17 file a responsive declaration in support of the Motion as required by Local Civil Rule 79-5(e)(1). 18 Order, Dkt. No. 114; see Pl.‟s Mot., Dkt. No. 109. Defendants filed the instant Motion that same 19 day. Defendants explain that “[d]ue to attorney mistake, defendants failed to file a timely Local 20 Rule 79-5 declaration.” Defs.‟ Mot. at 2; see Ceballo Decl. ¶ 2, Dkt. No. 115-1. Having 21 considered the parties‟ arguments, the record in this case, and the relevant legal authority, the 22 Court issues the following order. 23 24 LEGAL STANDARD There is a “strong presumption in favor of access” by the public to judicial records and 25 documents accompanying dispositive motions. Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 26 1172, 1178-79 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 27 (9th Cir. 2003)). To overcome this presumption, a “party must articulate compelling reasons 28 supported by specific fact[s].” Id. at 1178 (internal quotation and citation omitted); see also 1 Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 727 F.3d 1214, 1223 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (finding sealing 2 appropriate where companies “filed declarations from employees” that “explained the measures 3 the two companies take to keep their product-specific financial information confidential” and “the 4 harm they would suffer if their product-specific financial information were made public”). 5 Indeed, such showing is required even where “the dispositive motion, or its attachments, were 6 previously filed under seal or protective order.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179. DISCUSSION 7 8 A. Exhibits 1-4 Defendants do not seek to seal Exhibits 1-4. Ceballo Decl. ¶¶ 3(1)-(4). Accordingly, the 9 Court ORDERS Plaintiff to file unredacted versions of Exhibits 1-4 in the public docket and/or 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 lodge them with the Court no later than April 11, 2017. 12 B. Exhibits 5 and 6 Defendants argue Exhibits 5 and 6 should be sealed. Id. ¶¶ 3(5)-(6). They contend “[b]oth 13 14 [exhibits] are portions of investigatory files, for unrelated incidents, from the Police 15 Accountability Office, previously called the Office of Citizen Complaints („OCC‟).” Defs.‟ Mot. 16 at 2. “Federal courts have recognized police officers‟ privacy interest in their personnel files, 17 18 but a generalized assertion of a privacy interest is not sufficient to warrant barring disclosure of a 19 judicial record.” Pryor v. City of Clearlake (“Pryor I”), 2012 WL 2711032, at *1 (N.D. Cal. July 20 6, 2012) (citing Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1184). Defendants argue “OCC files are kept confidential 21 to protect the identity of the complainants, the witnesses, and the officers.” Defs.‟ Mot. at 2. 22 Confidentiality (1) allows the Police Accountability Office to investigate complaints without fear 23 that a party will take a portion of the investigation out of context or use “the department‟s”1 24 conclusions or theories for unintended purposes; (2) protects the privacy rights of the persons 25 involved; and (3) allows the police department to take appropriate disciplinary action. Id.; see 26 Ceballo Decl. ¶¶ 3(5)-(6). Defense counsel declares Exhibits 5 and 6 “contain[] information 27 1 28 Defendants do not specify whether “the department” refers to the Police Accountability Office, the San Francisco Police Department, or another unidentified department. 2 1 protected by a privacy right . . . , work product, or are confidential as a personnel file under 2 California Penal Code section 832.7.” Ceballo Decl. ¶¶ 3(5)-(6). Defendants further assert that 3 “[a] simple attorney mistake should not serve to harm the mission of the OCC.” Defs.‟ Mot. at 2. Compelling reasons exist to seal Exhibits 5 and 6. Defendants set forth specific reasons 5 why confidentiality is necessary. Moreover, Exhibits 5 and 6 name parties not involved in this 6 proceeding whose identities are not relevant to the disposition of this matter. The nonparties‟ 7 privacy interests outweigh the public‟s interest in disclosure of their identities. See Hunt v. Cont’l 8 Cas. Co., 2015 WL 5355398, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 14, 2015). These Exhibits also consist of 9 OCC files documenting events unrelated to the instant case. While relevance is not a dispositive 10 factor, “the lack of relevance of the sensitive information . . . underscores the privacy interest in 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 4 sealing such information.” Pryor v. City of Clearlake (“Pryor II”), 2012 WL 3276992, at *4 12 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 9, 2012); see Pryor I, 2012 WL 2711032, at *1 (Where the information sought to 13 be sealed is irrelevant, sensitive, and private, there is a “raise[d] . . . likelihood that it was filed . . . 14 because of private spite or a desire to scandalize the public.”). For these reasons, the Court 15 GRANTS Defendants‟ Motion as to Exhibits 5 and 6. 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 18 19 20 Dated: April 4, 2017 ______________________________________ MARIA-ELENA JAMES United States Magistrate Judge 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?