Howell v. Tran et al

Filing 36

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO FILE EXHIBIT UNDER SEAL 29 . (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 5/1/2017) (Additional attachment(s) added on 5/1/2017: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (tfS, COURT STAFF).

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

KAREEM J. HOWELL,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No. 15-cv-05377-SI
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO FILE
EXHIBIT UNDER SEAL

v.
C. TRAN, et al.,

Re: Dkt. No. 29

Defendants.

12
13

This pro se prisoner's civil rights action includes a claim about the use of force on plaintiff

14

when he was removed from his cell at the Santa Clara County Jail. Defendants have moved for

15

summary judgment. In connection with that motion, Defendants have filed a motion to file an

16

exhibit under seal.

17

Defendants wish to have filed under seal Exhibit 1 to the McHugh Declaration. Exhibit 1

18

is a DVD copy of a 5-minute, 30-second video-recording of plaintiff’s removal from his cell.

19

Defendants urge that Exhibit 1 should be sealed because it “contains confidential and highly

20

sensitive footage of the County of Santa Clara Main Jail facility related to the September 1, 2015

21

incident involving the removal and transfer of Plaintiff from his jail cell.” Docket No. 29 at 2.

22

Defendants cite Castillon v. Corrections Corp. of America, 2015 WL 3948459 (D. Idaho June 29,

23

2015), as support for the proposition that “[v]ideo footage of security incidents at prisons and jails

24

justify sealing the video” because of security concerns related to the publication of such a video.

25

Docket No. 29 at 2.

26

The court may order a document filed under seal “upon a request that establishes that the

27

document, or portions thereof, are privileged, protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to

28

protection under the law (hereinafter referred to as ‘sealable’). The request must be narrowly

1

tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material.” N. D. Cal. Local Rule 79-5(b). There is a

2

strong presumption favoring the public’s right of access to court records which should be

3

overridden only for a compelling reason. Hagestad v. Tragesser, 49 F.3d 1430, 1433-34 (9th Cir.

4

1995). “Counseling against such access would be the likelihood of an improper use, ‘including

5

publication of scandalous, libelous, pornographic, or trade secret materials; infringement of fair

6

trial rights of the defendants or third persons; and residual privacy rights.’” Valley Broadcasting

7

Co. v. United States District Court, 798 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1986) (citation omitted). In

8

prisoner cases, genuine concerns that the release of the document will endanger staff or inmates

9

can support an order sealing a document.
Upon due consideration of the motion to seal Exhibit 1, the court disagrees with

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

defendants’ assessment of the risk of danger that would flow from making Exhibit 1 public.

12

Critically, Exhibit 1 contains a video taken with a handheld video-recorder carried by a member of

13

the correctional staff during plaintiff’s removal from his cell. This makes the present situation

14

distinguishable from the Castillon case cited by defendants, where the exhibit in question

15

contained footage “taken from a surveillance camera at [the prison], with depictions of . . . angles

16

and span of the cameras in [the pod],” and the cameras were still in use at their same locations.

17

Castillon, 2015 WL 3948459 at *2-3. A curious person watching the video in Castillon could

18

figure out what area could not be seen with the camera, and use that information for nefarious

19

purposes, such as attacking someone in an area known not to be visible to the camera. There is no

20

similar potential with Exhibit 1 because the footage is not from a camera in a fixed location. A

21

curious person watching Exhibit 1 could not determine how to avoid being captured on video by a

22

correctional official carrying a camera. Exhibit 1 also does not capture any image of a control

23

panel or any other security device at the jail. In short, Exhibit 1 does not provide any sensitive

24

information about the positioning and viewing capabilities of any surveillance system. For this

25

reason, the court finds that defendants have not overcome the presumption favoring public access

26

to court records. Accordingly, the application to file Exhibit 1 under seal is DENIED. (Docket

27

No. 29.)

28
2

1

Having decided that the Exhibit 1 will not be filed under seal, there remains the issue of

2

what to do with it. Respondent may (a) retrieve Exhibit 1 within seven days of the date of this

3

order so that it will not become part of the public record, or (b) file a notice that Exhibit 1 may be

4

filed in the public record. See generally Local Rule 79-5(f). Unless the exhibit is made part of the

5

public record, the court will not consider it for purposes of ruling on defendants’ motion for

6

summary judgment.

7
8
9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 1, 2017
______________________________________
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3