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)

Download PDF
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

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?