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

Filing 361

ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANTS 356 SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 2/29/2012. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/29/2012)

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 REGARDING
DEFENDANTS’
SUPPLEMENTAL
DECLARATION IN
SUPPORT OF
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION
TO FILE UNDER SEAL
(Docket No. 356)

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.
________________________________/
On February 24, 2012, the Court granted in part and denied in

22

part Plaintiffs’ administrative motion to file under seal certain

23

exhibits that Plaintiffs offered in support of their motion for

24

class certification.

25

Defendants had designated certain exhibits, including Exhibit 65,

26

as confidential and, subsequently, Defendants submitted a

27

declaration in support of Plaintiffs’ motion.

28

In their motion, Plaintiffs stated that

In the Order of

1

February 24, 2012, the Court denied Plaintiffs’ request to file

2

Exhibit 65 under seal, noting that Defendants had failed to

3

address Exhibit 65 in their declaration or to provide any reasons

4

to support the sealing thereof.

5

On February 27, 2011, Defendants filed a supplemental

6

declaration in support of Plaintiffs’ motion to seal.

7

Decl., Docket No. 356.

8

Defendants appear to request that the Court reconsider its denial

9

of Plaintiffs’ motion to seal insofar as it pertained to Exhibit

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

See Suppl.

In the supplemental declaration,

65.

11

Because the public interest favors filing all court documents

12

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

13

seal must demonstrate good cause to do so.

14

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

15

Pintos v. Pac.

Exhibit 65 appears to consist of a “Volunteer’s Participation

16

Agreement” executed by Plaintiff Tim M. Josephs on January 3,

17

1968.

18

Exhibit 65 is sealable because it “contains information about one

19

of the named Plaintiffs in this case that is covered by the

20

Privacy Act,” specifically, his “name and serial number.”

21

Decl. ¶¶ 5-6.

22

individual’s confidential information by government agencies, not

23

by the individual himself.

24

Plaintiffs, who offer this document as an exhibit, do not object

25

to filing this exhibit under seal, Plaintiffs, including Mr.

26

Josephs, do not assert that it contains confidential information

27

or offer good cause in support of filing it under seal.

28

Plaintiffs have already publicly disclosed that Mr. Josephs signed

In their supplemental declaration, Defendants state that

Suppl.

However, the Privacy Act covers disclosure of an

See 5 U.S.C. § 552a.

2

While

Further,

1

this form.

2

of Civil Procedure 5.2(h) (providing that, even as to certain

3

presumptively private information, a person may waive privacy

4

protections by filing it without redaction and not under seal).

5

See Third Amended Compl. ¶ 196.

See also Federal Rule

Accordingly, Defendants have not provided good cause to file

6

Exhibit 65 under seal.

7

reconsider its Order of February 24, 2012 (Docket No. 356).

8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

The Court DENIES Defendants’ request to

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: 2/29/2012

CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3