Vietnam Veterans of America et al v. Central Intelligence Agency et al

Filing 352

ORDER by Judge Claudia WilkenGRANTING IN PART, AND DENYING IN PART, PLAINTIFFS 347 MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/24/2012)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4
5
6
7
8

VIETNAM VETERANS OF AMERICA;
SWORDS TO PLOWSHARES: VETERANS
RIGHTS ORGANIZATION; BRUCE PRICE;
FRANKLIN D. ROCHELLE; LARRY
MEIROW; ERIC P. MUTH; DAVID C.
DUFRANE; TIM MICHAEL JOSEPHS; and
WILLIAM BLAZINSKI, individually,
on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated,

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

ORDER GRANTING IN
PART, AND DENYING
IN PART,
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION
TO FILE UNDER SEAL
(Docket No. 347)

Plaintiffs,

9
10

No. C 09-0037 CW

v.
CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY;
DAVID H. PETRAEUS, Director of
the Central Intelligence Agency;
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
DEFENSE; LEON E. PANETTA,
Secretary of Defense; UNITED
STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY;
JOHN M. MCHUGH, United States
Secretary of the Army; UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA; ERIC H.
HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General of
the United States; UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS;
and ERIC K. SHINSEKI, UNITED
STATES SECRETARY OF VETERANS
AFFAIRS,
Defendants.
________________________________/
Plaintiffs have submitted an administrative motion seeking to

22

file under seal Exhibits 2, 3, 11, 13, 35, 37, 39, 65, and 69-73

23

attached to the Declaration of Stacey M. Sprenkel in support of

24

their motion for class certification.

25

state that Defendants have designated Exhibits 2, 3, 11, 13, 35,

26

37, 39, and 65 as confidential.

27

of their motion, Plaintiffs clarify that only a portion of Exhibit

28

In their motion, Plaintiffs

In their declaration in support

1

11 has been designated as confidential and that they seek to file

2

a redacted version of this exhibit in the public record.

3

Decl. ¶ 11.

4

Plaintiffs’ motion.

5

Sprenkel

Defendants have filed a declaration in support of

Because the public interest favors filing all court documents
in the public record, any party seeking to file a document under

7

seal must demonstrate good cause to do so.

8

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

9

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

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

6

protective order or by stating in general terms that the material

11

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

12

a sworn declaration demonstrating with particularity the need to

13

file each document under seal.

14

a document has been designated as confidential by another party,

15

that party must file a declaration establishing that the document

16

is sealable.

17

Pintos v. Pac.
This cannot

See Civil Local Rule 79-5(a).

If

Civil Local Rule 79-5(d).

Plaintiffs represent that they have designated Exhibits 69-73

18

as confidential because these exhibits contain “information

19

relating to the privacy and/or past, present, or future physical

20

or mental health or condition of persons not specifically made

21

public in the Complaint in this action.”

22

exhibits Plaintiffs seek to seal contain sensitive information for

23

putative class members who are specifically identified by name

24

within those exhibits.

25

have established good cause to seal Exhibits 69-73.

26

Id. at ¶¶ 3-7.

Spreckel Decl. ¶ 2.

The

Accordingly, Plaintiffs

Defendants, however, have not established good cause to

27

support the sealing of Exhibits 2, 3, 13, 35, 37, 39 and 65 in

28

their entirety or of portions of Exhibit 11.
2

In their declaration

1

in support of Plaintiffs’ motion to seal, Defendants withdraw

2

their confidentiality designation for Exhibit 39.

3

¶ 4.

4

reasons to support the sealing thereof.

5

indicate that they continue to consider the emails contained

6

within Exhibits 35 and 37 to be confidential, but withdraw their

7

confidentiality designation for the attachments to those emails.

8

Id. at ¶¶ 5-6. Accordingly, Defendants have not established good

9

cause to seal to seal Exhibits 39 or 65 or the attachment portions

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

Gardner Decl.

Defendants also do not address Exhibit 65 or provide any
Defendants further

of Exhibits 35 or 37.

11

Defendants represent that they seek to seal “Exhibits 2, 3,

12

11, and the email portions of 35 and 37,” because these exhibits

13

“contain information that is covered by the Privacy Act,

14

including, among other things, sensitive medical information,

15

social security numbers, dates of birth and financial account

16

information as well as personally identifying information for both

17

Plaintiffs and other individuals.”

18

Exhibit 2 nor the email portions of Exhibits 35 and 37 contain any

19

such personally identifying or sensitive information.

20

is an email chain generally discussing testing of chemical and

21

biological agents at particular locations in the 1970s and 1980s,

22

but it does not include protected information linked to any

23

individual.

24

general descriptions of the non-confidential attachments thereto

25

and the sender’s email signatures.

26

fourth pages of Exhibit 3 consist of an enlistment form completed

27

by a non-party, which does contain personally identifying

28

information, the remainder of this exhibit contains only general

Id. at ¶ 6.

However, neither

Exhibit 2

The email portions of Exhibits 35 and 37 contain only

3

Further, while the third and

1

information on the recruitment of test subjects.

2

portion of Exhibit 11 that Defendants seek to seal contains an

3

excerpt of the transcript from Plaintiff William F. Blazinski’s

4

deposition in which he refers to being diagnosed with leukemia and

5

colitis.

6

confidential information and have already publicly disclosed this

7

diagnosis in the public record.

8

Accordingly, Defendants have not established good cause to seal to

9

seal Exhibits 2, 3 or 11 in their entirety or the email portions

Finally, the

However, Plaintiffs do not assert that this is

See Third Amended Compl. ¶ 221.

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

of Exhibits 35 or 37.

11

cause to seal the third and fourth pages of Exhibit 3.

12

However, Defendants have established good

Defendants represent that “Exhibit 13 contains information

13

that the United States has determined, pursuant to the Protective

14

Order . . . should not be publicly disclosed.”

15

Defendants do not provide any other reason to support the sealing

16

of Exhibit 13.

17

established by generally stating that the material is subject to a

18

protective order or that the party considers the material

19

confidential.

20

not established that Exhibit 13 is sealable.

21

Gardner Decl. ¶ 7.

Good cause to support sealing cannot be

Local Rule 79-5(a).

Accordingly, Defendants have

For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiffs’ motion to file

22

under seal is DENIED to the extent that it pertains to Exhibits 2,

23

11, 13, 35, 37, 39 and 65 and to Exhibit 3 other than pages three

24

and four thereof (Docket No. 347).

25

to the extent that it pertains to pages three and four of Exhibit

26

3 and to Exhibits 69-73 (Docket No. 347).

27

General Order 62, within four days of the date of this Order,

28

Plaintiffs shall electronically file Exhibits 3 and 69-73 under
4

Plaintiffs' motion is GRANTED

In accordance with

1

seal and shall file in the public record Exhibits 2, 11, 13, 35,

2

37, 39 and 65 and a redacted version of Exhibit 3.

3
4
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: 2/24/2012

CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge

6
7
8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5