Ashker et al v. Schwarzenegger et al

Filing 210

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken DENYING 196 PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO SEAL. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/21/2013)

1
2
3
4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

TODD ASHKER, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

8
9

No. C 09-5796 CW
ORDER DENYING
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION
TO SEAL (Docket
No. 196)

v.

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, et al.,

11

Defendants.
________________________________/

12
13

On May 2, 2013, Plaintiffs moved to seal sections of Dr.

14

Terry Kupers’ declaration in support of their motion for class

15

certification.

16

sealing request is overbroad, the Court denies the motion.

17

Defendants oppose the motion.

Because Plaintiffs’

The public interest favors filing all court documents in the

18

public record.

19

seal must demonstrate good cause to do so.

20

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

21

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

22

protective order or by stating in general terms that the material

23

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

24

a sworn declaration demonstrating with particularity the need to

25

file each document under seal.

26

Thus, any party seeking to file a document under
Pintos v. Pac.
This cannot

See Civil Local Rule 79–5(a).

Here, Plaintiffs seek to seal paragraphs 11 through 30 of Dr.

27

Kupers’ declaration on the grounds that those paragraphs contain

28

“information relating to the past, present, and future physical

1

and mental health condition of Plaintiffs.”

2

reviewing the relevant excerpt of the declaration, the Court finds

3

that only paragraphs 18 through 27 -- which summarize the

4

individual interviews Dr. Kupers conducted with each of the ten

5

Plaintiffs -- contain potentially sealable information.

6

Paragraphs 11 through 17, in contrast, describe Plaintiffs’ mental

7

health in general terms without focusing on any individual

8

Plaintiff’s symptoms.

9

is either not sealable (such as the length of time Plaintiffs have

Mot. 2.

After

These paragraphs disclose information that

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

spent in Pelican Bay’s Security Housing Unit, see Kupers Decl.

11

¶ 11) or that Plaintiffs themselves disclosed in their Second

12

Amended Complaint (such as their feelings of numbness, anger,

13

anxiety, fear, and other emotions, see Kupers Decl. ¶¶ 11-17).

14

Paragraphs 28 through 30 are also not sealable because, rather

15

than revealing sensitive medical information, these paragraphs

16

focus on Dr. Kupers’ methodology for determining whether or not

17

Plaintiffs are representative of other inmates in the Security

18

Housing Unit.

19

Although paragraphs 18 through 27 may contain some sealable

20

information, they may not be sealed in their entirety.

21

of these paragraphs contain information about each Plaintiff’s

22

racial background and length of imprisonment, neither of which

23

constitutes sealable information.

24

Furthermore, many of these paragraphs describe symptoms and

25

conditions that Plaintiffs previously disclosed in their

26

complaint.

27

remains sealable because their complaint merely consists of

28

allegations, rather than admissible medical evidence, this is a

Almost all

See Kupers Decl. ¶¶ 18-27.

Although Plaintiffs contend that this information

2

1

distinction without a difference.1

2

complaint, they should have been prepared for the possibility that

3

they would eventually need to submit evidence supporting the

4

allegations made publicly therein.

5

When Plaintiffs filed their

If Plaintiffs wish to seal portions of Dr. Kupers’

6

declaration, they must file a renewed motion to seal.

7

must be narrowly tailored and should only seek to seal portions of

8

paragraphs 18 through 27 that do not mirror allegations in the

9

complaint.

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

The motion

CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiffs’ motion to file

12

under seal (Docket No. 196) is DENIED.

13

order, Plaintiffs must either file an unredacted version of Dr.

14

Kupers’ declaration in the public record or submit a renewed

15

motion to seal consistent with the terms of this order.

16

Within seven days of this

IT IS SO ORDERED.

17
18

Dated: 5/21/2013

19

CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge

20
21
22
23
24
1

25
26
27
28

In fact, Plaintiffs themselves seem to acknowledge that
information contained in a publicly filed complaint is not sealable. In
their brief, they cite a sealing order issued in Vietnam Veterans of Am.
v. Central Intelligence Agency, where this Court granted a motion to
seal information about the “past, present, or future physical or mental
health or condition of persons not specifically made public in the
Complaint.” 2012 WL 1094360, at *1-*2 (N.D. Cal.) (emphasis added).
Their brief specifically quotes the highlighted language.

3