Allen, et al v. County of Lake, et al

Filing 55

ORDER Denying 49 Plaintiffs' Request for Judicial Notice, and 50 Plaintiffs' Administrative Motion to File Under Seal. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 10/06/14. (tehlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/6/2014)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4

MONA ALLEN, et al.,

5

Plaintiffs,
v.

6
7

COUNTY OF LAKE, et al.,
Defendants.

8

Case No. 14-cv-03934-TEH
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS'
REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
AND ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION
TO FILE UNDER SEAL

9

Plaintiffs have filed a motion for judicial notice of a video of the Regular Meeting

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

held by the County of Lake Board of Supervisors on August 19, 2014. Plaintiffs

12

additionally seek the Court’s permission to file two declarations under seal. The Court has

13

carefully considered the submissions of the parties and finds further argument unnecessary.

14

For the reasons set for below, the Court finds good cause to DENY WITHOUT

15

PREJUDICE Plaintiffs’ motion to file under seal and DENY WITH PREJUDICE

16

Plaintiffs’ request for judicial notice.

17
18

BACKGROUND
On September 16, 2014, upon the request of Plaintiffs, the Court set an expedited

19
20

briefing schedule for Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction. (Docket No. 33). This

21

schedule required Plaintiffs to submit supplemental briefing on the matter by September

22

17, 2014. Plaintiffs were further ordered to provide proof of the Complaint’s service to all

23

Defendants by September 19, 2014. Defendants were ordered to submit their opposition to

24

Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction by September 29, 2014. Plaintiffs

25

appropriately filed their supplemental brief and declarations, as well as complete proof of

26

service to all Defendants, by the Court’s deadlines. (Docket No. 34-43, 45). Defendants1

27
1

28

The term “Defendants” in this Order does not refer to Loren Freeman, who has yet to
appear in this matter.

1

similarly met their filing deadline, submitting their opposition to the motion for

2

preliminary injunction on September 29, 2014. (Docket No. 47).
On September 30, 2014, Plaintiffs filed the two motions now before this Court. In

3
4

the first motion, Plaintiffs requested judicial notice of a DVD containing a video of the

5

County of Lake Board of Supervisors’ Regular Meeting on August 19, 2014. (Docket No.

6

49). In the second motion, Plaintiffs sought permission to file under seal two John Doe

7

declarations, both in support of Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction. (Docket

8

No. 50). Plaintiffs accordingly provided unredacted versions of the declarations to the

9

Court. On October 2, 2014, Defendants filed their opposition to both of Plaintiffs’

10

motions. (Docket No. 51).

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

LEGAL STANDARD
Federal Rule of Evidence 201 provides the standard for judicial notice of

13
14

adjudicative facts. According to this Rule, a court may judicially notice “a fact that is not

15

subject to reasonable dispute because it: (1) is generally known within the trial court’s

16

territorial jurisdiction; or (2) can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose

17

accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.” Fed. R. Evid. 201(b). The scope of noticeable

18

facts includes “court filings and other matters of public record.” Reyn’s Pasta Bella, LLC

19

v. Visa USA, Inc., 442 F.3d 741, 746 n.6 (9th Cir. 2006). “Moreover, a court may take

20

judicial notice of records and reports of administrative bodies.” Mack v. South Bay Beer

21

Distributors, Inc., 798 F.2d 1279, 1282 (9th Cir. 1986) (internal quotation marks omitted).

22

Judicial notice may be taken at any stage of the proceeding. Fed. R. Evid. 201(d).
District courts “have the inherent power to control their dockets . . . .” Ferdik v.

23
24

Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992). Because this power includes the authority

25

to dismiss entire cases where litigants fail to comply with a court’s order, it logically

26

includes the authority to strike documents filed in violation of the Court’s expressed

27

deadlines and/or local rules. See id. (affirming dismissal for failure to obey the court’s

28

order).
2

1

DISCUSSION

2

1. The Administrative Motion to File Under Seal is Improperly Before the Court.

3

In their opposition, Defendants contend that Plaintiffs’ motion to file under seal two

4

John Doe declarations in support of the motion for preliminary injunction should have

5

been filed before the September 17, 2014 briefing deadline ordered by the Court. Opp’n at

6

2. On this point, the Court agrees. The submission of this request is in violation of the

7

Court’s express order for Plaintiffs to fully brief this matter by September 17, 2014. This

8

noncompliance is especially egregious where the Plaintiffs were the ones that requested an

9

expedited briefing schedule, and in fact initially indicated a preference to set their own
deadline a day earlier than ordered by the Court. The Court will not now, more than

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

thirteen days later at the time of filing, consider additional documentation in support of

12

Plaintiffs’ argument. On this ground alone, the motion to file under seal is denied.

13

Defendants also argue that the motion should be denied because it is out of

14

compliance with Civil Local Rule 79-5, which requires the moving party to provide a copy

15

of the document it seeks to file under seal. Opp’n at 3. To be clear, the Local Rules

16

require the moving party to provide a copy of the document to the Court, not to opposing

17

counsel. However, the Court reminds Plaintiffs that documents may be filed under seal

18

before obtaining a specific court order, under Civil Local Rule 79-5(c). Doing so will

19

provide notice to both opposing counsel and the Court that the documents have been

20

provided, while the Court decides whether to consider the filings under Rule 79-5(f).

21

Should Plaintiffs seek to file these declarations under seal in the future, in a matter

22

unrelated to the motion for preliminary injunction or after receiving leave to do so, the

23

Court encourages Plaintiffs to carefully follow the requirements of Rule 79-5.

24

Specifically, where a party requests a redacted filing, as Plaintiffs have done in the

25

alternative here, they should provide the Court with a redacted version of the document as

26

required by Rule 79-5(d)(1)(C). It is not enough to simply list the portions sought to be

27

redacted in the motion, as Plaintiffs have done in this case. See Mot. at 2 (listing proposed

28

redactions). Further, Plaintiffs should be mindful of the merits of their request to seal the
3

1

entirety of the declarations where they have shown the ability to cure the danger posed to

2

the declarants by redacting select portions thereof.

3

Because Plaintiffs’ motion to file these declarations under seal is in support of their

4

motion for preliminary injunction, and the deadline to fully brief the issue of preliminary

5

injunction has already passed, the Court exercises the authority to control its docket by

6

denying Plaintiffs’ motion without prejudice. Accordingly, the declarations will not be

7

filed with the Court at this time.

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

2. The Request for Judicial Notice is Improperly Before the Court and Inappropriate
under Federal Rule of Evidence 201.
As with the declarations that Plaintiffs seek to file under seal, the video recording of

12

a meeting held by Lake County’s Board of Supervisors is also supporting documentation

13

of Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction, which should have been filed two weeks

14

earlier. For this reason alone, the Court acts within its discretion to deny Plaintiffs’ request

15

for judicial notice. However, the Court also denies Plaintiffs’ request on the merits.

16

Federal Rule of Evidence 201 provides for the judicial notice of facts that are “not

17

subject to reasonable dispute” because they are “generally known within the trial court’s

18

territorial jurisdiction; or can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose

19

accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.” Fed. R. Evid. 201(b). The video Plaintiffs

20

seek to have judicially noticed does not constitute a fact that meets this description. First,

21

the video itself is not a “fact,” unless Plaintiffs are only asking the Court to notice the

22

existence of this video or the occasion of this meeting. Additionally, while Plaintiffs cite

23

to specific time stamps in their supplemental brief, they now ask the Court to judicially

24

notice the entire video. Problematically, the video presents a lengthy public meeting that

25

covers a multitude of topics involving a large number of different speakers. Some of the

26

topics discussed are irrelevant to these proceedings. More importantly, while some of

27

these speakers are party to this case, the majority of the speakers are not. Consequently,

28

while some of the statements made in the video might be admissible nonhearsay because
4

1

they are admissions, much of the video’s content is objectionable on a number of

2

evidentiary grounds. As a result, the content of this meeting does not qualify as a fact “not

3

subject to reasonable dispute” as required by Rule 201(b). Moreover, the meeting does not

4

qualify as the record or report of an administrative body, as the Board of Supervisors is a

5

legislative and executive body, and this video recording does not constitute a record or

6

report. Accordingly, the Court declines to judicially notice the entire August 19, 2014

7

meeting of the County of Lake Board of Supervisors.

8
9
10

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Plaintiffs’ motion to file two declarations under seal, and DENIES WITH PREJUDICE

12

Plaintiffs’ request for judicial notice of a video recording of the August 19, 2014 meeting

13

of the County of Lake Board of Supervisors.

14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16
17
18

Dated: 10/06/14

_____________________________________
THELTON E. HENDERSON
United States District Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

5