Reyes v. San Francisco Unified School District

Filing 141

ORDER by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers denying 138 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/20/2012)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

1

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

2
3
4

MARGARET REYES,
Plaintiff,

5
6
7
8
9

vs.
SAN FRANCISCO UNIFIED SCHOOL
DISTRICT,

Case No.: 11-cv-04628-YGR
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
FILE UNDER SEAL DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPTS
AND DOCUMENTS IN OPPOSITION TO
DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT

Defendant.

10
11

Northern District of California

United States District Court

12
13
14

On August 8, 2012, Plaintiff filed an amended Motion to File Under Seal Deposition
Transcripts and Documents in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (“Motion to
Seal” or “Motion”). (Dkt. No. 138.) Plaintiff seeks leave of court to file documents and deposition
transcript excerpts under seal (hereinafter, “Exhibits”) because Defendant considers them confidential
and refused to grant permission to file them publicly. Id. at 2. Plaintiff does not believe any of the

15

Exhibits contain confidential information, but makes this Motion because there is a Protective Order
16

in this action. Id. In the Motion to Seal, Plaintiff anticipated that Defendant would assert that a
17

particular document, an email sent from one attorney to another, is privileged. Id.
18
19
20

As a preliminary matter, the Court notes that this Motion to Seal falls under Civ. L.R. 79-5(d),
which addresses “Filing a Document Designated Confidential by Another Party.” L.R. 79-5(d) states

21

that a non-designating party wishing to file a document designated confidential must file and serve an

22

administrative motion to seal and lodge the document or memorandum in accordance with the Local

23

Rule. “Within 7 days thereafter, the designating party must file with the Court and serve a declaration

24

establishing that the designated information is sealable, and must lodge and serve a narrowly tailored

25

proposed sealing order, or must withdraw the designation of confidentiality. If the designating party

26

does not file its responsive declaration as required by this subsection, the document or proposed filing

27

will be made part of the public record.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(d). Plaintiff filed this Motion to Seal because

28

the Protective Order requires it and Defendant has been given an opportunity to respond and justify its

1

designation of confidentiality. Defendant, however, did not file a declaration establishing that the

2

designated Exhibits at issue in the Motion to Seal are sealable, nor did counsel lodge and serve a

3

narrowly-tailored proposed sealing order or withdraw the designation of confidentiality. See Civ.

4

L.R. 79-5(d).

5

A motion to seal documents attached to a dispositive motion that are part of the judicial record

678 (9th Cir. 2010). A “party seeking to seal judicial records must show that ‘compelling reasons

8

supported by specific factual findings . . . outweigh the general history of access and the public

9

policies favoring disclosure.’” Id. (quoting Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d

10

1172, 1178–79 (9th Cir. 2006)). The trial court must weigh relevant factors including the “public

11

interest in understanding the judicial process and whether disclosure of the material could result in

12
Northern District of California

is governed by the “compelling reasons” standard. Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665,

7

United States District Court

6

improper use of the material for scandalous or libelous purposes or infringement upon trade secrets.”

13

Pintos, 605 F.3d at 679 n. 6 (quoting Hagestad v. Tragesser, 49 F.3d 1430, 1434 (9th Cir. 1995)). In

14

effect, an order authorizing sealing of a document would require the court to lock the courtroom doors

15

as to the proffered material during trial. While the decision to grant or deny a motion to seal is within

16

the trial court’s discretion, the basis must be compelling and the court must articulate its reasoning in

17

approving such a request. Pintos, 605 F.3d at 679. Further, given the importance of the competing

18

interests at stake, any sealing order must be narrowly tailored. Civ. L.R. 79-5(a). “A stipulation . . .

19

that allows a party to designate documents as sealable[] will not suffice to allow the filing of

20

documents under seal.” Id. (emphasis added).

21

The Court hereby DENIES this Motion to Seal because Defendant has not complied with Civ.

22

L.R. 79-5(d) and no party has established that the Exhibits are sealable. The Exhibits at issue in this

23

Motion to Seal must be publicly-filed by Wednesday, August 21, 2012. Chambers copies of the

24

publicly-filed documents must be delivered no later than the next business day at noon.

25

This Order terminates Dkt. No. 138.

26

IT IS SO ORDERED.

27

Dated: August 20, 2012

_________________________________________

YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

28

2