Pryor v. City of Clearlake et al

Filing 66

ORDER by Judge Claudia WilkenDENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE DEFENDANTS' 63 ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/3/2012)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4

SEAN PRYOR,

5
6
7
8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

No. C 11-0954 CW

Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF CLEARLAKE, a governmental
entity; CARL MILLER,
individually, and in his capacity
as a police officer for the City
of Clearlake and acting sergeant;
ALAN WADE McCLAIN, individually
and in his capacity as Chief of
Police for the City of Clearlake;
CRAIG CLAUSEN, individually and
in his capacity as Police
Lieutenant for the City of
Clearlake; MICHAEL RAY,
individually, and in his capacity
as a police officer for the City
of Clearlake; and DOES 1-50,
individually, and in their
capacity as police officers for
the City of Clearlake,

ORDER DENYING
WITHOUT PREJUDICE
DEFENDANTS'
ADMINISTRATIVE
MOTION TO SEAL
(Docket No. 63)

Defendants.
________________________________/

18
19

Defendants have filed an administrative motion for an order

20

permitting them to file under seal their reply to Plaintiff's

21

opposition to their motion for summary judgment.

22

Defendants' motion to seal does not specify whether they seek a

23

sealing order under Civil Local Rule 79-5(b) or (c), but based on

24

the submissions to the Court, it appears that they seek to file

25

the entire reply brief under seal, pursuant to the former

26

provision.

27

sealed pursuant to a stipulation submitted by the parties.

28

Docket No. 63.

Defendants contend that their reply brief should be

1

Because the public interest favors filing all court documents

2

in the public record, any party seeking to file a document under

3

seal must demonstrate good cause to do so.1

4

documents cannot be established by stipulation, or a blanket

5

protective order that allows a party to designate documents as

6

sealable.

7

narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material, and

8

must conform with Civil L.R. 79-5(b) or (c)."

9

exists only to file portions of a particular document under seal,

Civil Local Rule 79-5(a).

Cause to seal

Rather, the "request must be

Id.

If good cause

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

a redacted version of the document must be filed in the public

11

record.

Civil Local Rule 79-5(c).

12

Defendants' motion to seal is denied because there is

13

insufficient evidence to establish good cause to seal the reply

14

brief and the request appears to be overbroad.

15

request is denied without prejudice, subject to re-filing pursuant

16

to Local Rule 79-5.

17

Accordingly, the

Defendants have manually submitted to the Court an unredacted

18

copy of the reply brief, attached to their motion to seal.

19

unnecessary to continue the January 12, 2012 hearing on the motion

20

for summary judgment, provided that Defendants served the same

21

unredacted reply brief on Plaintiff's counsel.

22

certificate of service accompanying Defendants' motion to seal,

23

Defendants appear to have done so.

24

notify the Court if Plaintiff has not received a copy of the reply

It is

Based on the

The parties shall promptly

25
26
1

27
28

A “compelling interest” standard applies to documents filed in
support of or opposition to a dispositive motion. Pintos v. Pac.
Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678-79 (9th Cir. 2010).
2

1

brief, so that the Court may continue the hearing date, if

2

necessary.

3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

4
5
6

Dated: 1/3/2012

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