Schiff et al v. Barrett et al

Filing 222

ORDER granting 179 Motion to Seal; granting in part and denying in part 201 Motion to Seal; granting in part and denying in part 207 Motion to Seal. Signed by Judge Hamilton on 9/12/2011. (pjhlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/12/2011)

Download PDF
1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 6 7 FREDERICK SCHIFF, Plaintiff, 8 9 v. ORDER RE MOTIONS TO SEAL TERESA BARRETT, et al., 11 For the Northern District of California 10 United States District Court No. C 10-1051 PJH Defendants. _____________________________/ 12 13 14 15 Before the court are three motions to seal documents – one filed by defendant City and County of San Francisco, and two filed by plaintiff Frederick Schiff. 1. Defendant’s motion to seal (Doc. 179) portions of the Declaration of Robert 16 Moser and Exhibits A and B thereto, filed in support of defendant’s motion for summary 17 judgment, and the Declaration of Lauren Monson in support of the motion to seal, is 18 GRANTED, because the documents contain the names, and personnel information, 19 including disciplinary complaints, investigations, and findings, and other private information 20 of third-party peace officers who are not parties to this action. 21 2. Plaintiff’s motion to seal (Doc. 201) Exhibits P and FF to the Declaration of 22 Thomas K. Bourke in support of plaintiff’s opposition to defendant’s motion for summary 23 judgment is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. 24 With regard to Exhibit P, the request is DENIED as to pages with Bates Nos. CCSF 25 004858 to 004877, CCSF 004880 to 004882, and CCSF 004884 to 4889, based on the 26 City’s having redesignated those documents as non-confidential. The request is 27 GRANTED as to pages with Bates Nos. CCSF 004878 to 004879, and Bates No. 004883, 28 because the documents are draft versions of confidential internal analyses of the 2008 1 Lieutenant examination process, which were not shared with anyone outside the San 2 Francisco Examination Unit, other than the San Francisco City Attorney’s Office, and were 3 not made public in any way. 4 With regard to Exhibit FF, the request is GRANTED, as the documents include 5 secondary criteria forms submitted to the Examination Unit by certain candidates eligible for 6 promotion from the 2005 Lieutenant eligible list. These forms private personal information 7 related to the candidates, which the City considers to be confidential and part of employee 8 personnel records. 9 3. Plaintiff’s motion to seal (Doc. 207) Exhibits 1 and 2 to the Declaration of Richard Bruce, Exhibits L and GG to the Declaration of Thomas K. Bourke, and Exhibits G 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 and M to the Declaration of Frederick Schiff, filed in support of plaintiff’s opposition to 12 defendant’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. 13 With regard to Exhibit 1 to the Bruce Declaration, the request is GRANTED, as the 14 document consists of a transcript of an internal investigation related to conduct by a peace 15 officer. As such, the City considers it a confidential personnel record. It is also part of a 16 criminal investigation conducted by the SFPD Special Investigations Unit, and is governed 17 by the official information privilege. 18 19 20 With regard to Exhibit 2 to the Bruce Declaration, the request is DENIED, based on the City’s having redesignated this document as non-confidential. With regard to Exhibit L to the Bourke Declaration, the request is DENIED, based on 21 the City’s non-opposition to the sealing request, which was premised on the City’s having 22 designated the document as confidential. 23 With regard to Exhibit GG to the Bourke Declaration, the request is GRANTED, as 24 the document consists of a transcript of an internal investigation related to conduct by a 25 peace officer. As such, the City considers it a confidential personnel record. It is also part 26 of a criminal investigation conducted by the SFPD Special Investigations Unit, and is 27 governed by the official information privilege. 28 With regard to Exhibit G to the Schiff Declaration, the request is GRANTED. The 2 1 document contains racial/demographic information of third-party police officers, and was 2 created by the EEO investigator, Svetlana Vaksberg, as part of her investigation into 3 plaintiff’s EEO complaint. 4 With regard to Exhibit M to the Schiff Declaration, the request is DENIED, based on 5 plaintiff’s having redacted third-party identifying information, and the City having withdrawn 6 any confidential designation as to the redacted version of the document. 7 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 Dated: September 12, 2011 ______________________________ PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON United States District Judge 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 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?