Flanigan v. San Francisco Police Department et al

Filing 387

OMNIBUS ORDER RE 268 295 297 335 346 349 REMAINING SEALING MOTIONS. SIGNED BY JUDGE ALSUP. (whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/13/2024)Any non-CM/ECF Participants have been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF)

1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6
7

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9
10

WILLIE M. FLANIGAN,
Plaintiff,

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14

No. C 16-00066 WHA

v.
OFFICER JARED HARRIS, OFFICER
BRIAN HICKLIN, and SERGEANT
CONROY TAM,

OMNIBUS ORDER RE REMAINING
SEALING MOTIONS

Defendants.

15
16
17
18
19

This omnibus order addresses all remaining administrative motions to seal (Dkt.
Nos. 268, 295, 297, 335, 346, 349).
There is a strong public policy in favor of openness in our court system and the public is

20

entitled to know to whom we are providing relief (or not) and why. See Kamakana v. City &

21

Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178–80 (9th Cir. 2006). Consequently, access to motions

22

and their attachments that are “more than tangentially related to the merits of a case” may be

23

sealed only upon a showing of “compelling reasons” for sealing. Ctr. for Auto Safety v.

24

Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1101–02 (9th Cir. 2016). Filings that are only tangentially

25

related to the merits may be sealed upon a lesser showing of “good cause.” Id. at 1097. The

26

compelling reasons standard applies to most judicial records. Evidentiary motions, such as

27

motions in limine and Daubert motions, can be strongly correlative to the merits of a case. Id.

28

at 1098–1100.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

1

In addition, sealing motions filed in this district must contain a specific statement that

2

explains: (1) the legitimate private or public interests that warrant sealing; (2) the injury that

3

will result should sealing be denied; and (3) why a less restrictive alternative to sealing is not

4

sufficient. The material requested to be sealed must be “narrowly tailored to seal only the

5

sealable material.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(c). For example, “[t]he publication of materials that could

6

result in infringement upon trade secrets has long been considered a factor that would

7

overcome [the] strong presumption” in favor of access and provide compelling reasons for

8

sealing. Apple Inc. v. Psystar Corp., 658 F.3d 1150, 1162 (9th Cir. 2011). Compelling reasons

9

may also warrant sealing for “sources of business information that might harm a litigant’s

10

competitive standing,” especially where the public has “minimal interest” in the information.

11

See Nixon v. Warner Comms., Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978).

12

Finally, “[s]upporting declarations may not rely on vague boilerplate language or

13

nebulous assertions of potential harm but must explain with particularity why any document or

14

portion thereof remains sealable under the applicable legal standard.” Bronson v. Samsung

15

Elecs. Am., Inc., 2019 WL 7810811, at *1 (N.D. Cal. May 28, 2019) (citing Civ. L.R. 79-5).

16

“Reference to a stipulation or protective order that allows a party to designate certain

17

documents as confidential is not sufficient to establish that a document, or portions thereof, are

18

sealable.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(c).

19

1.

20

Before plaintiff was appointed pro bono counsel, proceedings were stayed, and trial was

DKT. NO. 268: INITIAL MOTIONS IN LIMINE.

21

reset for October 2023 (Dkt. Nos. 280, 283), defendants filed a first set of motions in limine

22

with a motion to seal seven exhibits in support of their first and second motions (Dkt. No. 268).

23

Because this set of motions in limine was never taken up by the Court and was superseded by a

24

subsequent set of motions in limine filed in advance of our October 2023 trial, the public

25

interest in this material is de minimis. The motion to seal is GRANTED.

26
27
28
2

1

United States District Court
Northern District of California

2

2.

DKT. NOS. 295 & 297: MOTIONS TO REOPEN DISCOVERY AND FOR LEAVE TO
FILE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION.

In September 2023, plaintiff submitted motions to reopen discovery and for leave to file a

3

motion for reconsideration (Dkt. Nos. 294, 296), along with associated motions to seal (Dkt.

4

Nos. 295, 297). Specifically, plaintiff moved to seal (1) a transcript of an audio recording that

5

defendants had designated as confidential (Dkt. Nos. 295-2, 297-3), and (2) highlighted

6

portions of his motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration that referred to the contents

7

of that transcript (Dkt. No. 297-2). Because the contents of that transcript went to the heart of

8

this motion practice, there is a strong public interest in disclosure. What’s more, no one made

9

any showing of harm that disclosure of this material could cause (including defendants, who

10

had originally designated the transcript as confidential). Accordingly, these motions to seal are

11

DENIED.

12

3.

13

Before trial, defendants filed a motion to seal material submitted with their first motion in

DKT. NOS. 335, 346, & 349: FINAL MOTIONS IN LIMINE.

14

limine (Dkt. No. 335), and plaintiff filed motions to seal material submitted with his third and

15

fifth motions in limine (Dkt. Nos. 346, 349). With respect to those motions and associated

16

exhibits, this order rules as follows:

17
18
19
20
21

Dkt.
No.
335-3

Document to be
Sealed
San Francisco
Police Department
Chronical of
Investigation, 2017

Result

Reasoning

GRANTED.

Defendants filed this material that
plaintiff had marked as confidential
conditionally under seal. As plaintiff
observes, this detailed report from an
investigation that occurred years after the
events at issue — submitted to show
plaintiff’s prior conduct and convictions
— was not even on either party’s exhibit
list (Dkt. No. 350). Accordingly, the
public interest in this material is de
minimis. Moreover, the report contains
private information regarding witnesses,
disclosure of which could cause harm.

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3

1

346-3

Probation Order,
2014

GRANTED

San Francisco
Police Department
Computer Aided
Dispatch

GRANTED

346-5

Toxicology Report

DENIED.

Plaintiff filed this material conditionally
under seal, but defendants do not seek to
keep it confidential (Dkt. No. 352). With
no justification, the motion as to this
material is denied.

346-6

Traffic Collision
Report No.
140922986,
Supplemental
Report
Traffic Collision
Report No.
140922986, DMV
Statement
Traffic Collision
Report No.
140922986, DUI
Forms
Plaintiff’s Fifth
Motion in Limine

DENIED.

See entry for Dkt. No. 346-5.

DENIED.

See entry for Dkt. No. 346-5.

DENIED.

See entry for Dkt. No. 346-5.

DENIED.

The redacted portions of this brief relate
to the transcript that this order has
already declined to seal (see Dkt.
Nos. 295, 297). Defendants do not seek
to keep this material confidential (Dkt.
No. 351). With no justification, the
motion as to this material is denied.

2

AS
AMENDED.

3
4
5
6

346-4

7
8

AS
AMENDED.

9
10

Plaintiff filed this material conditionally
under seal with defendants’ redactions,
but defendants now only seek to redact
plaintiff’s CII number pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5-2 (Dkt.
No. 352). This request is narrowly
tailored to avoid harm to plaintiff and
balances the public interest in court
records.
Plaintiff filed this material conditionally
under seal with defendants’ redactions,
but defendants now only seek to redact
the phone number of a non-party (Dkt.
No. 352). This request is narrowly
tailored to avoid harm to the non-party
and balances the public interest in court
records.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

346-7

19
20

346-8

21
22
23

349-3

24
25
26
27
28
4

1

349-4

Lampkin
Transcript

DENIED.

This is the same transcript that this order
has already declined to seal (see Dkt.
Nos. 295, 297). In this instance,
however, defendants have provided a
statement objecting to disclosure because
the transcript contains information
protected by the officer’s right to privacy
and because there is no confirmation that
the third-party in the transcript consented
to his statements being made public (Dkt.
No. 351). But that third-party, William
Lampkin, ended up testifying on the
relevant details at trial, and defendants
have not identified any specific
information in this transcript that could
cause an officer harm and overcome the
public interest in this material, as set out
above.

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
All documents that must be refiled shall be refiled in full compliance with this order no later
13
than APRIL 2, 2024, at 12:00 P.M. Although appointed pro bono counsel for plaintiff have
14

formally withdrawn for the purposes of dissociating themselves from plaintiff’s appeal, the

15
Court kindly requests that they take care of these filings for plaintiff.
16
IT IS SO ORDERED.
17
18
Dated: February 13, 2024.
19
20
21

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5