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)

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