Hofmann et al v. The City & County of San Francisco et al

Filing 103

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken Denying 91 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/19/2013)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4

HEINZ HOFMANN, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

5
6

No. C 11-4016 CW
ORDER DENYING
MOTION TO SEAL
(Docket No. 91)

v.

7

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN
FRANCISCO, et al.,

8

Defendants.
________________________________/

9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

Plaintiffs Heinz Hofmann and Thomas Buckley move to seal an

11

exhibit filed in support of their cross-motion for summary

12

judgment.

13

to seal the exhibit, their motion is denied.

14

Because Plaintiffs have not provided compelling reasons

Plaintiffs seek to seal various documents from their

15

personnel records and from the personnel records of several other

16

San Francisco Police Department (SFPD) employees who are not

17

parties to this lawsuit.

18

a dispositive motion, Plaintiffs “must overcome a strong

19

presumption of access by showing that ‘compelling reasons

20

supported by specific factual findings . . . outweigh the general

21

history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure.’”

22

Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 679 (9th Cir. 2010)

23

(citation omitted).

24

must also be “privileged or protectable as a trade secret or

25

otherwise entitled to protection under the law.

26

a blanket protective order that allows a party to designate

27

documents as sealable, will not suffice to allow the filing of

28

documents under seal.”

Because these documents are connected to

Under Civil Local Rule 79-5(a), the documents

A stipulation, or

1

Plaintiffs have not met this standard here.

The records they

2

seek to seal contain mostly non-sealable information, such as the

3

employment histories and educational backgrounds of individual

4

SFPD officers.

5

records -- namely, individual SFPD employees’ personal contact

6

information -- has already been redacted.

7

request is not “narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable

8

material,” as the local rules require.

9

Although Plaintiffs assert that these records were designated

Indeed, the only sealable information in these

As such, Plaintiffs’

Civil L.R. 79-5(a).

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

confidential under an earlier protective order,1 this is

11

insufficient to justify a sealing request under the local rules,

12

as noted above.

13

Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ motion to seal (Docket No. 91) is

14

DENIED.

15

within three days of this order.

16

Plaintiffs shall file the exhibit in the public record

IT IS SO ORDERED.

17
18

Dated: 6/19/2013

19

CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
1

27
28

Plaintiffs’ motion to seal suggests that these records were
designated confidential by Defendants. Defendants, however, failed to
file any declaration supporting such a designation, as they were
required to do under Civil Local Rule 79-5(d).

2