Brackin v. California Department of State Hospitals et al

Filing 16

ORDER APPROVING PROTECTIVE ORDER SUBJECT TO STATED CONDITIONS by Hon. William Alsup granting 15 Stipulation.(whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/29/2015)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

12
13
14
15

No. C 15-03351 WHA

SHAWN BRACKIN,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER APPROVING
STIPULATED PROTECTIVE
ORDER SUBJECT TO
STATED CONDITIONS

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF STATE
HOSPITALS, NAPA STATE HOSPITAL,
DOLLY MATTEUCCI, CINDY BLACK,
KATIE COOPER, HAROLD COLLINS,
FIONA MONTA, EPLIDLO CAPICOY, and
DOES 1–20, inclusive,

16
Defendants.
17

/

18
The stipulated protective order submitted by the parties is hereby APPROVED, subject to
19
the following conditions, including adherence to the Ninth Circuit’s strict caution against
20
sealing orders (as set out below):
21
1.

The parties must make a good-faith determination that any

22
information designated “confidential” truly warrants protection under Rule 26(c)
23
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Designations of material as
24
“confidential” must be narrowly tailored to include only material for which there
25
is good cause. A pattern of over-designation may lead to an order un-designating
26
all or most materials on a wholesale basis.
27
2.

In order to be treated as confidential, any materials filed with the

28
Court must be lodged with a request for filing under seal in compliance with Civil
Local Rule 79-5. Please limit your requests for sealing to only those narrowly

1

tailored portions of materials for which good cause to seal exists. Please include

2

all other portions of your materials in the public file and clearly indicate therein

3

where material has been redacted and sealed. Each filing requires an

4

individualized sealing order; blanket prospective authorizations are no longer

5

allowed by Civil Local Rule 79-5.

6

3.

Chambers copies should include all material — both redacted and

7

unredacted — so that chambers staff does not have to reassemble the whole brief

8

or declaration. Although chambers copies should clearly designate which

9

portions are confidential, chambers copies with confidential materials will be
handled like all other chambers copies of materials without special restriction, and

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

will typically be recycled, not shredded.

12

4.

In Kamakana v. Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006),

13

the Ninth Circuit held that more than good cause, indeed, “compelling reasons”

14

are required to seal documents used in dispositive motions, just as compelling

15

reasons would be needed to justify a closure of a courtroom during trial.

16

Otherwise, the Ninth Circuit held, public access to the work of the courts will be

17

unduly compromised. Therefore, no request for a sealing order will be allowed

18

on summary judgment motions (or other dispositive motions) unless the movant

19

first shows a “compelling reason,” a substantially higher standard than “good

20

cause.” This will be true regardless of any stipulation by the parties. Counsel are

21

warned that most summary judgment motions and supporting material should be

22

completely open to public view. Only social security numbers, names of

23

juveniles, home addresses and phone numbers, and trade secrets of a compelling

24

nature (like the recipe for Coca Cola, for example) will qualify. If the courtroom

25

would not be closed for the information, nor should any summary judgment

26

proceedings, which are, in effect, a substitute for trial. Motions in limine are also

27

part of the trial and must likewise be laid bare absent compelling reasons. Please

28
2

1

comply fully. Noncompliant submissions are liable to be stricken in

2

their entirety.

3
4
5

5.

Any confidential materials used openly in court hearings or trial

will not be treated in any special manner absent a further order.
6.

This order does not preclude any party from moving to

6

undesignate information or documents that have been designated as confidential.

7

The party seeking to designate material as confidential has the burden of

8

establishing that the material is entitled to protection.

9

7.

The Court will retain jurisdiction over disputes arising from the

proposed and stipulated protective order for only NINETY DAYS after final

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

termination of the action.

12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14
15
16

Dated: September 28, 2015.

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3