Armstrong, et al v. Davis, et al

Filing 2183

ORDER by Judge Claudia WilkenGRANTING PLAINTIFFS 2159 MOTION TO SEAL AND GRANTING IN PART DEFENDANTS 2167 MOTION TO SEAL AND 2169 STIPULATION TO FILE UNDER SEAL. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/27/2012)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4

JOHN ARMSTRONG, et al.,

5
6
7

Plaintiffs,

ORDER GRANTING
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION
TO SEAL (Docket
No. 2159) AND
GRANTING IN PART
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION
TO SEAL AND
STIPULATION TO
FILE UNDER SEAL
(Docket Nos. 2167
and 2169)

v.
EDMUND G. BROWN, JR., et al.,

8
9

No. C 94-2307 CW

Defendants.
________________________________/

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

Plaintiffs seek to file under seal the unredacted version of

12

the declaration of Michael Freedman and the exhibits attached

13

thereto in support of their motion to enforce the Court’s orders

14

regarding Armstrong class members housed in county jails.

15

No. 2159.

16

should be filed under seal, but seek Court permission to share the

17

declarations with the counties involved.

18

file under seal the declaration of Bob Underwood in support of

19

their opposition and the exhibits attached thereto, as well as

20

references to these documents in their opposition brief.

21

No. 2167.

22

Underwood declaration and accompanying exhibits in the public

23

record.

See Docket No. 2171.

The parties also stipulate to the

24

filing of these documents under seal.

Docket No. 2169.

25

Docket

Defendants do not dispute that the unredacted documents

Defendants also seek to

Docket

Defendants have filed a redacted version of the

Because the public interest favors filing all court documents

26

in the public record, any party seeking to file a document under

27

seal must demonstrate good cause to do so.

28

Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010).

Pintos v. Pac.
This cannot

1

be established simply by showing that the document is subject to a

2

protective order or by stating in general terms that the material

3

is considered to be confidential, but rather must be supported by

4

a sworn declaration demonstrating with particularity the need to

5

file each document under seal.

6

See Civil Local Rule 79-5(a).

Defendants attest that the Underwood declaration and the

7

documents attached thereto contain personal information of

8

inmates, including their names, CDCR numbers and confidential

9

medical information.

Nguyen Decl. ¶ 3.

The parties have provided

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

sufficient reasons supporting the sealing of the Underwood

11

declaration and documents attached thereto.

12

in their opposition brief, Defendants have not referred to the

13

confidential information contained in the Underwood declaration

14

and accompanying documents and have not redacted any information

15

in the brief.

16

under seal, and the parties’ stipulation authorizing sealing, are

17

GRANTED to the extent they seek to file the unredacted Underwood

18

declaration and attached exhibits under seal and denied to the

19

extent Defendants' seek to file their opposing brief under seal

20

(Docket Nos. 2167 and 2169).

21

The Court notes that,

Accordingly, Defendants’ motion for leave to file

Plaintiffs similarly attest that the Freedman declaration

22

contain personal information of prisoners and parolees, including

23

their names, California Department of Corrections and

24

Rehabilitation (CDCR) identification numbers, and disability

25

status.

26

The Court finds that Plaintiffs have established sufficient

27

reasons to support the filing of the unredacted Freedman

28

declaration and its attached documents under seal.

Freedman Decl. in Supp. of Mot. to File Under Seal ¶ 5.

2

Accordingly,

1

Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file under seal is GRANTED (Docket

2

No. 2159).
To the extent that Defendants contend that the Court should

4

find that the documents are not subject to the protective orders

5

in this case, the Court notes that this is a separate question

6

from whether the documents are sealable.

7

79-5(a).

8

not filed in the public docket.

9

Defendants' objection to the use of the declaration and exhibits

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

3

in connection with Plaintiffs’ motion to enforce, the Local Rules

11

require that all evidentiary and procedural objections be

12

contained in the opposition to the motion itself.

13

Rule 7-3.

14

in place, Defendants may move to modify the protective order or

15

permit disclosure of personal or security information beyond its

16

terms.

17

See Civil Local Rule

Defendants agree that the relevant information should
Further, with regard to

See Civil Local

Pursuant to the terms of the protective order currently

See Docket No. 1044, ¶ 14.

Within four days of the date of this Order, Defendants shall

18

electronically file under seal an unredacted version of the

19

Underwood declaration and its accompanying exhibits.

20

date, Plaintiffs shall also electronically file under seal

21

unredacted versions of the Freedman declaration and its

22

accompanying exhibits and shall file redacted versions of these

23

documents in the public record.

24

By that

IT IS SO ORDERED.

25
26
27

Dated: 8/27/2012

CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge

28
3