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
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?