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

Filing 464

Order by Judge Claudia Wilken granting in part and denying in part 451 Defendants' Administrative Motion to File Under Seal (cwlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/3/2012)

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,
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION
TO SEAL
(Docket No. 451)

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.
________________________________/
Defendants have submitted an administrative motion seeking to

22

file under seal their unredacted opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion

23

to substitute and Exhibits A and B attached to the Declaration of

24

Judson O. Littleton, submitted in support of their opposition.

25

Having reviewed the papers submitted by Defendants and the

26

exhibits that they seek to file under seal, the Court grants

27

Defendants’ motion in part and denies it in part.

28

Because the public interest favors filing all court documents

1
2

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

3

seal must demonstrate good cause to do so.

4

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

5

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

6

protective order or by stating in general terms that the material

7

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

8

a sworn declaration demonstrating with particularity the need to

9

file each document under seal.

Pintos v. Pac.
This cannot

See Civil Local Rule 79-5(a).

If

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

a document has been designated as confidential by another party,

11

that party must file a declaration establishing that the document

12

is sealable.

13

Civil Local Rule 79-5(d).

Defendants represent that they are seeking to seal Exhibits A

14

and B because these exhibits contain records with identifying and

15

sensitive personal information about Plaintiff Wray Forrest and

16

specifically are his health records.

17

reviewed the records, the Court finds that Defendants have

18

provided good cause to seal Exhibits A and B.

19

Littleton Decl. ¶ 2.

Having

Defendants, however, have not provided good cause to support

20

the sealing of any portion of their opposition.

21

represent that they seek to seal their unredacted opposition

22

because in it “Defendants discuss confidential information

23

contained in Exhibit A.”

24

copy of their opposition provided to the Court, Defendants

25

indicate that they seek to seal a single sentence in their

26

opposition.

Littleton Decl. ¶ 5.

Defendants

In the unredacted

Defs.’ Opp to Pls.’ Mot. to Substitute 6:24-27.1

27
1

28

The Court notes that the exhibits cited do not indicate when Mr.
Forrest and his wife met.
2

1

While Defendants do not explain clearly what portion of this

2

sentence they believe is confidential, it appears that they

3

believe that their recitation of Mr. Forrest’s alleged marital

4

history is sealable.

5

generally a matter of public record, and Defendants do not provide

6

any basis to find otherwise here.

7

may believe that the latter part of their statement is sealable,

8

the Court notes that Plaintiffs have already publicly disclosed

9

the fact and timing of Mr. Forrest’s participating in the human

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

testing program.

However, marriage and divorce records are

To the extent that Defendants

See, e.g., Third Amended Compl. ¶¶ 81-87.

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

12

under seal is DENIED to the extent that it pertains to their

13

unredacted opposition.

14

extent that it pertains to Exhibits A and B to the Littleton

15

Declaration.

16

days of the date of this Order, Defendants shall electronically

17

file Exhibits A and B under seal and shall file in the public

18

record their unredacted opposition.

19

Defendants’ motion is GRANTED to the

In accordance with General Order 62, within four

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20
21
22

Dated: July 3, 2012

CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge

23
24
25
26
27
28
3