Ashker et al v. Schwarzenegger et al

Filing 223

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken GRANTING PLAINTIFFS RENEWED 215 MOTION TO SEAL. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/4/2013)

Download PDF
1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 4 TODD ASHKER, et al., Plaintiffs, 5 6 No. C 09-5796 CW ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ RENEWED MOTION TO SEAL (Docket No. 215) v. 7 GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., 8 Defendants. ________________________________/ 9 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 On May 28, 2013, Plaintiffs filed a renewed motion to seal 11 portions of Dr. Terry Kupers’ declaration in support of their 12 motion for class certification. 13 After reviewing the sections of Kupers’ declaration that 14 Plaintiffs seek to seal, the Court grants Plaintiffs’ motion. 15 Defendants oppose the motion. Because the public interest favors filing all court documents 16 in the public record, any party seeking to file a document under 17 seal must demonstrate good cause to do so. 18 Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010). 19 be established simply by showing that the document is subject to a 20 protective order or by stating in general terms that the material 21 is considered to be confidential, but rather must be supported by 22 a sworn declaration demonstrating with particularity the need to 23 file each document under seal. 24 Pintos v. Pac. This cannot See Civil Local Rule 79–5(a). Plaintiffs in this case seek to seal portions of Kupers’ 25 declaration that contain information about their mental and 26 physical health that they shared with a psychiatrist during 27 private interviews. 28 not been previously disclosed, Plaintiffs have established good Because this information is sensitive and has 1 cause for sealing these portions of the declaration. 2 Veterans of Am. v. Central Intelligence Agency, 2012 WL 1094360, 3 at *1-*2 (N.D. Cal.) (granting a motion to seal the “past, 4 present, or future physical or mental health or condition of 5 persons not specifically made public in the Complaint”). 6 See Vietnam Defendants argue that this information is not sealable because it broadly resembles certain allegations in the complaint. 8 They contend, “That an allegation made publicly about one 9 Plaintiff in the Second Amended Complaint is now made about a 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 7 different Plaintiff through an expert’s declaration does not 11 explain why the statement is sealable in one instance but not in 12 the other.” 13 not persuasive. 14 information about his health does not automatically render 15 sensitive information about another Plaintiff’s health public. 16 Defs.’ Opp. 3 (citations omitted).1 This argument is One Plaintiff’s willingness to disclose sensitive Thus, having found good cause to seal the redacted portions 17 of Kupers’ declaration, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion to 18 seal (Docket No. 215). 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 21 Dated: 6/4/2013 22 CLAUDIA WILKEN United States District Judge 23 24 25 1 26 27 28 In raising this argument, Defendants come very close to disclosing sensitive information about one Plaintiff’s health, which Plaintiffs specifically sought to seal. Although they stop just short of that point here, Defendants are warned that they may not publicly disclose any information -- whether through explicit or implicit means -- that is the subject of a pending sealing motion. 2

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?