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

Filing 500

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken GRANTING DEFENDANTS 498 MOTION TO SEAL. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/16/2013)

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,

v.

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

ORDER GRANTING
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION
TO SEAL
(Docket No. 498)

Plaintiffs,

9

11

No. C 09-0037 CW

CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY;
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.
________________________________/

20

Defendants have filed an administrative motion seeking to

21

file under seal Exhibits 61 through 66 of the Declaration of

22

Joshua E. Gardner submitted in support of their opposition to

23

Plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment and their cross-

24

motion for summary judgment.

25

submitted a declaration in support of the Defendants’ motion to

26

seal.

27
28

Docket No. 498.

Plaintiffs have

Docket No. 499.
Defendants’ filings are connected to a dispositive motion.

Because Plaintiffs designated the documents at issue as

confidential, they must file a declaration establishing that the

2

documents are sealable.

3

Plaintiffs “must overcome a strong presumption of access by

4

showing that ‘compelling reasons supported by specific factual

5

findings . . . outweigh the general history of access and the

6

public policies favoring disclosure.’”

7

Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 679 (9th Cir. 2010) (citation omitted).

8

cannot be established simply by showing that the document is

9

subject to a protective order or by stating in general terms that

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

1

the material is considered to be confidential, but rather must be

11

supported by a sworn declaration demonstrating with particularity

12

the need to file each document under seal.

13

79-5(a).

Civil Local Rule 79-5(d).

To do so,

Pintos v. Pac. Creditors
This

Civil Local Rule

14

Plaintiffs represent that Exhibits 61 through 64 contain

15

excerpts of deposition testimony of absent class members and that

16

Exhibits 65 and 66 are their supplemental responses to Defendants’

17

Interrogatories 19 and 21, which identify certain absent class

18

members.

19

maintained under seal because “they contain information relating

20

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

21

health or condition of persons not specifically made public in the

22

Complaint in this action.”

23

note that this Court has previously sealed excerpts of testimony

24

from the same deponents.

25

3).

26

support the sealing of Exhibits 61 through 66.

27
28

Plaintiffs state that these exhibits should be

Patterson Decl. ¶ 3.

Plaintiffs also

Id. (citing Docket Nos. 352 at 2; 381 at

Accordingly, Plaintiffs have provided compelling reasons to

For the reasons set forth above, Defendants’ motion to file
under seal is GRANTED.

In accordance with General Order 62,
2

1

within four days of the date of this Order, Defendants shall

2

electronically file Exhibits 61 through 66 under seal.

3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

4
5
6

Dated: 1/16/2013

CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge

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
3