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
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?