Vietnam Veterans of America et al v. Central Intelligence Agency et al
Filing
380
ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFFS 375 MOTION TO SEAL. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/29/2012)
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 GRANTING IN
PART AND DENYING
IN PART
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION
TO SEAL
(Docket No. 375)
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 March 22, 2012, Plaintiffs filed an administrative motion
22
seeking to file under seal the following documents: (1) portions
23
of their reply in support of their motion for class certification;
24
(2) portions of Exhibit 79 and the entirety of Exhibit 87 to the
25
Declaration of Stacy M. Sprenkel in support of their reply;
26
(3) the entirety of the Declaration of Tim Michael Josephs in
27
support of their reply; and (4) portions of the Declaration of
28
1
Bernard Edelman.
2
certain portions of Exhibit 79 as confidential and that Defendants
3
have designated overlapping portions of that exhibit as
4
confidential as well.
5
declaration in support of Plaintiffs’ motion to seal.
6
Plaintiffs state that they have designated
On March 29, 2012, Defendants filed a
Because the public interest favors filing all court documents
7
in the public record, any party seeking to file a document under
8
seal must demonstrate good cause to do so.
9
Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010).
Pintos v. Pac.
This cannot
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
be established simply by showing that the document is subject to a
11
protective order or by stating in general terms that the material
12
is considered to be confidential, but rather must be supported by
13
a sworn declaration demonstrating with particularity the need to
14
file each document under seal.
15
a document has been designated as confidential by another party,
16
that party must file a declaration establishing that the document
17
is sealable.
18
See Civil Local Rule 79-5(a).
If
Civil Local Rule 79-5(d).
Plaintiffs state that they seek to seal lines 82:4 and
19
142:2-5, 15 of Exhibit 79, the entirety of Exhibit 87, the Josephs
20
Declaration and portions of their reply brief, because they
21
contain “information relating the privacy and/or past, present, or
22
future physical or mental health or condition of persons not
23
specifically made public in the Complaint in this action.”
24
Sprenkel Decl. ¶ 5.
25
portions of the Edelman Declaration and portions of their reply
26
brief are sealable, because they contain information regarding
27
third-party putative class members not otherwise made public in
28
this action.
Plaintiffs also state that Exhibit 87,
Id. at ¶ 6.
Defendants state that they seek to seal
2
1
lines 81:24 through 82:10 of Exhibit 79, because it contains
2
“information from plaintiff David Dufrane’s volunteer service
3
member test file concerning the specific chemical substances with
4
which he was tested,” and that the test file is covered by the
5
Privacy Act.
6
at issue, the Court finds that the parties have established good
7
cause to seal lines 81:24 through 82:10 and 142:2-5, 15 of Exhibit
8
79, the entirety of Exhibit 87, portions of the Edelman
9
Declaration, and portions of their reply brief.
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
Gardner Decl. ¶¶ 5-6.
Having reviewed the documents
The Court also finds that Plaintiffs have provided good cause
11
to seal a portion of the Josephs Declaration.
12
already disclosed the information contained in paragraphs two,
13
three and a portion of four of the Josephs Declaration in the
14
third amended complaint (3AC).
15
information contained in Mr. Josephs’s medical file “indicates
16
that Mr. Josephs likely received injections of nerve gas”); 211
17
(stating that Mr. Josephs has been diagnosed with Parkinson’s
18
disease and currently suffers from hypertension); 212 (stating
19
that “Mr. Josephs sought benefits through the VA in the fall of
20
2009 . . . ”).
21
remainder of the declaration has not previously been disclosed
22
publicly.
23
Josephs declaration other than those portions noted above.
Plaintiffs have
See 3AC ¶¶ 202 (stating that
However, the private information contained in the
Accordingly, the Court finds good cause to seal the
24
For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiffs’ motion to seal
25
is GRANTED to the extent that it pertains to lines 81:24 through
26
82:10 and 142:2-5, 15 of Exhibit 79, the entirety of Exhibit 87,
27
portions of the Edelman Declaration, portions of their reply brief
28
and portions of the Josephs Declaration (Docket No. 375).
3
1
Plaintiffs’ motion to seal is DENIED to the extent that it
2
pertains to paragraphs two, three and a portion of four of the
3
Josephs Declaration.
4
four days of the date of this Order, Plaintiffs shall
5
electronically file their reply brief, Exhibits 79 and 87, the
6
Edelman Declaration, and the Josephs Declaration under seal, and
7
shall file in the public record redacted versions of their reply
8
brief, Exhibits 79, the Edelman Declaration and the Josephs
9
Declaration.
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
In accordance with General Order 62, within
IT IS SO ORDERED.
11
12
13
Dated: 3/29/2012
CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?