Schiff v. The City and County of San Francisco et al

Filing 171

ORDER granting 128 Motion to Seal; granting in part and denying in part 150 Motion to Seal; granting in part and denying in part 155 Motion to Seal. Signed by Judge Hamilton on 9/12/2011. (pjhlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/12/2011)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7
8
FREDERICK SCHIFF,
9
Plaintiff,

No. C 08-4627 PJH

v.

ORDER RE MOTIONS TO SEAL

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12

THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN
FRANCISCO, et al.,

13

Defendants.
_______________________________/

14
15

Before the court are three motions to seal documents – one filed by defendants City

16

and County of San Francisco and former Chief of Police Heather Fong, and two filed by

17

plaintiff Frederick Schiff.

18

1.

Defendants’ motion to seal (Doc. 128) portions of the Declaration of Robert

19

Moser and Exhibits A and B thereto, filed in support of defendants’ motion for summary

20

judgment, and the Declaration of Lauren Monson in support of the motion to seal, is

21

GRANTED, because the documents contain the names, and personnel information,

22

including disciplinary complaints, investigations, and findings, and other private information

23

of third-party peace officers who are not parties to this action.

24

2.

Plaintiff’s motion to seal (Doc. 150) Exhibits P and FF to the Declaration of

25

Thomas K. Bourke in support of plaintiff’s opposition to defendants’ motion for summary

26

judgment is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

27
28

With regard to Exhibit P, the request is DENIED as to pages with Bates Nos. CCSF
004858 to 004877, CCSF 004880 to 004882, and CCSF 004884 to 4889, based on the

1

City’s having redesignated those documents as non-confidential. The request is

2

GRANTED as to pages with Bates Nos. CCSF 004878 to 004879, and Bates No. 004883,

3

because the documents are draft versions of confidential internal analyses of the 2008

4

Lieutenant examination process, which were not shared with anyone outside the San

5

Francisco Examination Unit, other than the San Francisco City Attorney’s Office, and were

6

not made public in any way.

7

With regard to Exhibit FF, the request is GRANTED, as the documents include

8

secondary criteria forms submitted to the Examination Unit by certain candidates eligible for

9

promotion from the 2005 Lieutenant eligible list. These forms contain private personal
information related to the candidates, which the City considers to be confidential and part of

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

employee personnel records.

12

3.

Plaintiff’s motion to seal (Doc. 155) Exhibits 1 and 2 to the Declaration of

13

Richard Bruce, Exhibits L and GG to the Declaration of Thomas K. Bourke, and Exhibits G

14

and M to the Declaration of Frederick Schiff, filed in support of plaintiff’s opposition to

15

defendants’ motion for summary judgment is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

16

With regard to Exhibit 1 to the Bruce Declaration, the request is GRANTED, as the

17

document consists of a transcript of an internal investigation related to conduct by a peace

18

officer. As such, the City considers it a confidential personnel record. It is also part of a

19

criminal investigation conducted by the SFPD Special Investigations Unit, and is governed

20

by the official information privilege.

21
22
23

With regard to Exhibit 2 to the Bruce Declaration, the request is DENIED, based on
the City’s having redesignated this document as non-confidential.
With regard to Exhibit L to the Bourke Declaration, the request is DENIED, based on

24

the City’s non-opposition to the sealing request, which was premised on the City’s having

25

designated the document as confidential.

26

With regard to Exhibit GG to the Bourke Declaration, the request is GRANTED, as

27

the document consists of a transcript of an internal investigation related to conduct by a

28

peace officer. As such, the City considers it a confidential personnel record. It is also part
2

1

of a criminal investigation conducted by the SFPD Special Investigations Unit, and is

2

governed by the official information privilege.

3

With regard to Exhibit G to the Schiff Declaration, the request is GRANTED. The

4

document contains racial/demographic information of third-party police officers, and was

5

created by the EEO investigator, Svetlana Vaksberg, as part of her investigation into

6

plaintiff’s EEO complaint.

7

With regard to Exhibit M to the Schiff Declaration, the request is DENIED, based on

8

plaintiff’s having redacted third-party identifying information, and the City having withdrawn

9

any confidential designation as to the redacted version of the document.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
IT IS SO ORDERED.

12

Dated: September 12, 2011
______________________________
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
United States District Judge

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