Stewart v. City of Oakland, et al

Filing 88

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFNEDANT FRANK MORROW'S MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL; DIRECTIONS TO MORROW. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on 9/21/18. (mmcalc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/21/2018)

1
2
3
4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

JULEANA STEWART,
Plaintiff,

8
v.

9
10

CITY OF OAKLAND, et al.,
Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No. 17-cv-04478-MMC
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT
FRANK MORROW’S MOTION TO FILE
UNDER SEAL; DIRECTIONS TO
MORROW
Re: Dkt. No. 87

12
13

Before the Court is defendant Frank Morrow’s (“Morrow”) “Administrative Motion to

14

File Under Seal a Document Submitted in Support of [ ] Morrow’s Motion to Dismiss

15

Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint,” filed September 17, 2018, by which Morrow

16

seeks leave to file under seal portions of a Brentwood Police Department Report (the

17

“Report”) that was presented to the Court at a hearing held September 7, 2018, on

18

Morrow’s motion to dismiss. Although the title of the motion ordinarily would suggest the

19

Report is the sole document for which a sealing order is sought, Morrow, in connection

20

with said motion, has filed under seal all of the following: (1) an unredacted version of the

21

Report; (2) a redacted version of the Report; (3) the instant motion; (4) a declaration by

22

his counsel of record; and (5) a proposed order.

23
24
25

Having read and considered the above-referenced filings, the Court rules as
follows.
1. To the extent Morrow seeks leave to file under seal the unredacted version of

26

the Report (see Dkt. No. 87-2) (Taylor Decl. Ex. 1), the motion is hereby

27

GRANTED, and said document shall remain under seal.

28

2. To the extent Morrow seeks leave to file under seal the redacted version of the

1

Report (see Dkt. No. 87-3) (Taylor Decl. Ex. 2), the motion is hereby DENIED,

2

see Civ. L.R. 79-5(c) (providing “[o]nly the unredacted version of a document

3

sought to be sealed[] may be filed under seal before a sealing order is

4

obtained”); see also id. 79-5(b) (providing “request must be narrowly tailored to

5

seek sealing only of sealable material”), and Morrow is hereby DIRECTED to

6

file said document in the public record within seven days of the date of this

7

order.

8

3. To the extent Morrow seeks leave to file under seal the instant motion (see Dkt.
No. 87) and his counsel’s declaration (see Dkt. No. 87-1), the motion is hereby

9

DENIED, see Civ. L.R. 79-5(b), (c), and Morrow is hereby DIRECTED to file

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

said documents in the public record within seven days of the date of this order.

12

4. To the extent Morrow seeks leave to file under seal the proposed order (see

13

Dkt. No. 87-4), the motion is hereby GRANTED, for the reason that said

14

document contains sealable portions of the Report, and the Court has issued

15

the instant order in lieu thereof.1

16

IT IS SO ORDERED.

17
18

Dated: September 21, 2018
MAXINE M. CHESNEY
United States District Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Although a proposed order must “list[] in table format each document or portion
thereof that is sought to be sealed,” see Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(B), such list should not
include the sealable content of any such document.
1

2