Pryor v. City of Clearlake et al

Filing 79

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken granting in part and denying in part 67 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; deferring ruling on 69 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal (cwlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/6/2012)

1
2
3
4
5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

SEAN PRYOR,

9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

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 GRANTING IN
PART AND DENYING
IN PART
DEFENDANTS'
ADMINISTRATIVE
MOTION TO SEAL,
Docket No. 67, and
DEFERRING
PLAINTIFF’S
ADMINISTRATIVE
MOTION TO SEAL,
Docket No. 69.

Defendants.
________________________________/

22
23

I. Defendants’ Motion to Seal

24

Defendants have filed an administrative motion, pursuant to

25

this Court’s Local Rule 79-5(c), for an order permitting them to

26

file under seal portions of their reply brief in support of their

27

motion for summary judgment.

28

Docket No. 67.

1

The Ninth Circuit has held that where a party seeks to file

2

under seal documents as part of a dispositive motion, the moving

3

party must demonstrate compelling reasons to seal the documents.

4

Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178-79 (9th

5

Cir. 2006).

6

a vehicle for improper purposes’ such as the use of records to

7

gratify private spite, promote public scandal, circulate libelous

8

statements, or release trade secrets,” there are “compelling

9

reasons” sufficient to outweigh the public’s interest in

In general, when “‘court files might have become the

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

disclosure.

11

must articulate compelling reasons supported by specific factual

12

findings that outweigh the general history of access and the

13

public policies favoring disclosure, such as the public interest

14

in understanding the judicial process.”

15

citations and alterations omitted).

16

conscientiously balance the competing interests of the public and

17

the party who seeks to keep certain judicial records secret.”

18

at 1179 (internal citations and alterations omitted).

19

fact that the production of records may lead to a litigant’s

20

embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further litigation

21

will not, without more, compel the court to seal its records.”

22

Id. (citing Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d

23

1122, 1136 (9th Cir. 2003)).

24
25

Id. at 1179.

“The party requesting the sealing order

Id. at 1178-79 (internal

“In turn, the court must

Id.

“The mere

The Court applies the balancing, compelling-interest test to
Defendants’ request to seal the following portions of their reply.

26

A. Personnel File Information

27

First, Defendants request to seal Section II-A(1), page one,

28

line twelve through page three, line nineteen.
2

This portion of

1

the brief refers to information from the personnel files of

2

Defendant Carl Miller and Defendant Michael Ray.

3

that Miller and Ray have a privacy interest in their personal

4

information.

5

privacy interest in their personnel files, but a generalized

6

assertion of a privacy interest is not sufficient to warrant

7

barring disclosure of a judicial record.

8

at 1184 (“Simply mentioning a general category of privilege [such

9

as privacy], without any further elaboration or any specific

Defendants argue

Federal courts have recognized police officers’

See Kamakana, 447 F.3d

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

linkage with the documents, does not satisfy the burden” to show

11

compelling reasons to seal information from public access.)

12

However, Defendants argued in their reply that the personnel

13

information they request to seal here is inadmissible as

14

irrelevant and prejudicial.

15

Although it may show that Miller and Ray should not have been

16

hired according to department’s policies, there is no evidence

17

that these specific personnel concerns were factors that

18

precipitated alleged constitutional violations.

19

The information is irrelevant.

Thus, in addition to identifying Miller’s and Ray’s privacy

20

interest in their personnel information, some of which concerns

21

incidents that occurred decades ago, Defendants have established

22

that the information is irrelevant.

23

combined with the information’s sensitive, private nature raises

24

the likelihood that it was filed in connection with Pryor’s

25

opposition because of private spite or a desire to scandalize the

26

public.

27
28

The lack of relevance

The public has a strong interest in information concerning
the prosecution of civil rights actions, including lawsuits that
3

1

allege police misconduct, and an interest in understanding the

2

judicial process.

3

disclosure of documents filed with dispositive motions.

4

Nonetheless, there are compelling reasons to seal the personnel

5

information here.

6

A strong presumption weighs in favor of

Because sealing orders must be narrowly tailored and the

7

specific redactions sought include Defendants’ legal argument as

8

well as sealable information, the Court provides a more limited

9

order than that requested.

The approved redactions are designed

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

to seal the information necessary to protect Miller’s and Ray’s

11

privacy and avoid disclosures immaterial to the Court’s ruling and

12

solely likely to promote scandal and further private spite.

13

following redactions are approved:

14
15
16

The

1) page one, line sixteen through page two, line two, before
“While the Ninth”
2) page two, line twenty-four, after “Amendment violations.”

17

through page two, line twenty-five, before “does not

18

demonstrate . . .”

19

B. Facebook Wall Postings

20

Defendants also request to seal the entirety of Section II-

21

A(2) of their reply brief, specifically page three, line twenty

22

through page four, line eleven.

23

concerns Facebook posts and profile information from Miller’s

24

account.

25

describe specific Facebook postings.

26

information “delves into Miller’s private life, separate and apart

27

from his duties and functions as a sworn peace officer.”

28

Defendants cite no legal authority for the proposition that Miller

This section in the reply brief

It refers to Facebook material, but does not quote or

4

Defendants contend that the

1

enjoys a privacy interest in the information he posted on his

2

Facebook wall or in his Facebook profile, nor have they submitted

3

any evidence indicating the privacy settings that Miller selected

4

to protect his Facebook information.

5

assertion that the information is private is insufficient to

6

establish a compelling interest that overcomes the presumption in

7

favor of disclosures.

8
9

Defendants’ generalized

See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1184.

To the extent that Defendants argue that the material alluded
to in this section of the brief is irrelevant, this contention

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

alone is not sufficient to justify sealing references to Miller’s

11

Facebook wall.

12

evidence does not support Plaintiff’s claims, the standard for

13

sealing records is not the relevance of evidence submitted or the

14

fact that briefing referred to evidence eventually found to be

15

irrelevant.

16

Court is required to balance the competing interests of the public

17

and the party who moves to seal certain judicial records.

18

because Miller has submitted no evidence of the privacy settings

19

on his Facebook account, it is possible that, at the time the

20

Facebook wall postings were made, or during the litigation, his

21

wall was visible to the general public.

22

specific quote or description of particular Facebook postings, the

23

absence of any showing as to Miller’s privacy interest in his

24

Facebook material and the presumption in favor of disclosure of

25

judicial records, Defendants have failed to demonstrate a

26

compelling interest served by sealing Section II-A(2) of their

27

reply.

Although the Court finds that the Facebook

Instead, under the compelling-interest test, the

28
5

Here,

Given the lack of any

1

C. Official Administrative Complaints Against Miller

2

Defendants assert that page five, lines four through fifteen,

3

of their reply brief should be sealed because they concern

4

confidential information, in particular, allegations against

5

Miller.

6

official complaints and administrative actions taken in connection

7

with Miller after the incident, but they do not describe the

8

nature of the complaints or the administrative actions.

9

Defendants have not provided facts or cited authority to establish

The passages that Defendants ask to seal refer to

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

that there are compelling reasons to seal statements indicating

11

the mere existence of complaints against Miller and the occurrence

12

of administrative actions.

13

of public access, the request to seal is denied.

Thus, under the presumption in favor

14

D. Allegations Against Other CPD Members

15

Defendants seek an order sealing page five, lines sixteen

16

through twenty-seven, of their reply brief, which contains

17

sentences that refer to allegations made against members of the

18

CPD who are not Defendants in this action.

19

stated the reasons that this portion of the brief must be sealed.

20

The names of the non-party officers are not mentioned in the

21

sentences and the details of the complaints are not described.

22

Defendants’ request is denied.

Defendants have not

23

E. Conclusion

24

For the reasons explained above, Defendants’ motion to seal

25

portions of their reply brief is denied in part and granted in

26

part.

27

reply brief with the following passages redacted: 1) page one,

28

line sixteen through page two, line two, before “While the Ninth,”

Defendants shall file under seal, within five days, their

6

1

and 2) page two, line twenty-four, after “Amendment violations.”

2

through page two, line twenty-five, before “does not demonstrate

3

. . .”

4

II. Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal

5

Plaintiff moves to file under seal, pursuant to Local Rule

6

79-5(c), portions of his brief in opposition to Defendants’ motion

7

for summary judgment and portions of Exhibit Four to his

8

opposition.

9

many instances asks to seal identity and contact information

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

Plaintiff makes ten specific requests to seal, and in

provided in the various documents.
The compelling-reasons standard, described above, applies to

12

Plaintiff’s motion.

13

Circuit has upheld a lower court finding that there are compelling

14

reasons to seal the home addresses and social security numbers of

15

law enforcement officers.

16

magistrate judge’s decision to seal such information to avoid

17

“expos[ing] the officers and their families to harm or identity

18

theft).

19

provision states,

20
21
22
23
24

27
28

Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1182 (affirming

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2 applies as well.

Unless the court orders otherwise, in an electronic or
paper filing with the court that contains an
individual's social-security number, taxpayeridentification number, or birth date, the name of an
individual known to be a minor, or a financial-account
number, a party or nonparty making the filing may
include only:
(1)

the last four digits of the social-security
number and taxpayer-identification number;

(2)

the year of the individual's birth;

(3)

the minor's initials; and

(4)

the last four digits of the financialaccount number.

25
26

In addition, the Court notes that the Ninth

7

The

1

Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2

2

To log into this Court’s electronic case management system

3

and file documents, counsel were required to check a box

4

indicating that they understood their obligation to comply with

5

Rule 5.2.

6

such information.

7

version of Exhibit Four, removing all home address information,

8

social security numbers and birth dates.

9

the other information, such as names, photos, and hair color of

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

Nevertheless, several documents in Exhibit Four include
The Court orders Plaintiff to file a redacted

It is not apparent that

individuals, is subject to sealing.
However, the Court notes that the CPD designated all of the

12

documents in Exhibit Four as “CONFIDENTIAL” when it produced them

13

in discovery.

14

Under Rule 79-5(d), if a party wishes to file a document that has

15

been designated confidential by another party pursuant to a

16

protective order, or wishes to refer in a memorandum to

17

information so designated by another party, the submitting party

18

must file a motion to seal, and the designating party must, within

19

seven days thereafter, file with the Court and serve a declaration

20

establishing that the designated information is sealable.

21

Accordingly, Defendants shall file a declaration within seven days

22

addressing Plaintiff’s motion to seal, indicating the factual and

23

legal bases for sealing various portions of Exhibit Four.

24

Thus, the motion is subject to Local Rule 79-5(d).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

25
26
27

Dated:

July 6, 2012

CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge

28
8