Klamut v. King City

Filing 63

ORDER by Judge Maria-Elena James re: 60 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal. (mejlc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/28/2016)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

WILLIAM KLAMUT,

Case No. 15-cv-02132-MEJ

Plaintiff,
8

ORDER RE: MOTION TO FILE UNDER
SEAL

v.
9
10

CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL, et al.,

Re: Dkt. No. 60

Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

On November 17, 2016, Defendants Officer Seth Nibecker and Sergeant Daniel Wheeler

14

(collectively, “CHP Defendants”) filed a motion to file under seal. See Mot., Dkt. No. 60. The

15

Motion pertains to Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of Stanley Goff, which was filed in Support of

16

Plaintiff William Klamut’s Opposition to the CHP Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment.

17

See Ex. 1, Stanley Decl., Dkt. No. 59-1. Plaintiff did not file an opposition. For the reasons set

18

forth below, the Court DENIES the CHP Defendants’ Motion.

19
20

LEGAL STANDARD
There is a “strong presumption in favor of access” by the public to judicial records and

21

documents accompanying dispositive motions. Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d

22

1172, 1178-79 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135

23

(9th Cir. 2003)). To overcome this presumption, a “party must articulate compelling reasons

24

supported by specific fact[s].” Id. at 1178 (internal quotation and citation omitted); see also

25

Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 727 F.3d 1214, 1223 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (finding sealing

26

appropriate where companies “filed declarations from employees” that “explained the measures

27

the two companies take to keep their product-specific financial information confidential” and “the

28

harm they would suffer if their product-specific financial information were made public”).

1

Indeed, such showing is required even where “the dispositive motion, or its attachments, were

2

previously filed under seal or protective order.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179.
DISCUSSION

3
4

The “compelling reasons” standard applies to the CHP Defendants’ Motion, as it pertains

5

to Defendants’ dispositive Motion for Summary Judgment. See Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n,

6

605 F.3d 665, 678-79 (9th Cir. 2010); Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (“[T]he strong presumption of

7

access to judicial records applies fully to dispositive pleadings, including motions for summary

8

judgment and related attachments.”). The CHP Defendants fail to show that compelling reasons

9

exist to justify sealing.

10

Exhibit 1 purports to be a video that “shows that the plaintiff was not posing any threat or

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

actively resisting when he was tased by defendant Wheeler several times and shot with a less

12

lethal shotgun by defendant Nibecker from less than 15 feet away several times.” Goff Decl. ¶ 2.

13

The CHP Defendants contend Exhibit 1 is subject to the protective order entered on July 18, 2016.

14

Mot. at 1-2; see Protective Order, Dkt. No. 44. The protective order identifies documents subject

15

to the order, including photographs, CHP mobile video and audio recording system (“MVARS”)

16

records, and other documents the producing party designates as “confidential.” Protective Order

17

at 1-2. Paragraph 2 of the protective order provides that

18
19
20
21

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

[t]he documents and their contents may not be disclosed, copied,
distributed, shown, described, or read to any person or entity
(including, but not limited to, media representatives) by plaintiff or
his counsel, representatives or agents, other than (a) the parties to
this litigation; (b) the parties’ attorneys, paralegals, and legal office
staff in this litigation; (c) the parties’ expert consultants in this
litigation for purposes of expert consultation and trial testimony
preparation; and (d) the Court in this action, filed under seal, for
purposes of this litigation.
Id. ¶ 2. Paragraph 8 further requires that
[i]f any party intends to file a motion that includes as an exhibit any
writing(s) subject to this Protective Order, that party shall meet and
confer with the opposing party. If the producing party maintains its
position that the documents are confidential, the party intending to
file the documents must file a motion to file the documents under
seal pursuant to Local Rule 79-5 of the Northern District of
California.
Id. ¶ 8. The CHP Defendants argue these provisions required Plaintiff to file Exhibit 1, an
2

1

MVARS video, under seal and to notify the CHP Defendants that he intended to file a document

2

subject to the protective order in connection with his opposition. Mot. at 2.

3

But Exhibit 1 consists only of a photocopied image of the CD-ROM that contains the

4

video. See Ex. 1. Plaintiff submitted the actual CD-ROM with his chambers copy of his

5

Opposition, but he did not file the video itself on the public docket. To the extent the CHP

6

Defendants request the Court seal the above image, the Court DENIES the request. Even if the

7

protective order provides a compelling reason to seal the video, Exhibit 1 does not actually contain

8

the video and there is nothing about the image itself that warrants redaction. To the extent the

9

CHP Defendants wish to seal the video itself, the Court GRANTS the Motion. Plaintiff’s counsel

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

shall submit the CD-ROM to the Court to be filed under seal.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

12
13
14
15

Dated: November 28, 2016
______________________________________
MARIA-ELENA JAMES
United States Magistrate Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3