Felarca et al v. Birgeneau et al
Filing
516
ORDER by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers granting in part 390 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting in part 401 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; denying 416 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal.(fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/24/2016)
1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8
YVETTE FELARCA, ET AL.,
Case No. 11-cv-05719-YGR
Plaintiffs,
9
v.
10
11
ROBERT J. BIRGENEAU, ET AL.,
ORDER GRANTING IN PART
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO SEAL (DKT.
NO. 390, 401) AND
DENYING ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO
SEAL (DKT. NO. 416)
United States District Court
Northern District of California
Defendants.
12
13
Pending before the Court are motions to seal exhibits filed by Plaintiffs. (Dkt. No. 390,
14
401, 416.) Having carefully considered the motions and responses thereto, and the relevant
15
documents, and for the reasons stated herein, the Court: (1) GRANTS IN PART the administrative
16
motions to seal at Docket Nos. 390 and 401 as to the redacted Operational Plan document only,
17
and otherwise Denies sealing as to the remaining documents; and (2) DENIES the administrative
18
motion to seal at Docket No. 416. The Court addresses each motion in turn.
19
1.
Dkt. No. 390
20
Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Seal Exhibits A through P filed in support of their motion for
21
summary judgment. (Dkt. No. 390.) In response, and acknowledging the more stringent
22
compelling reasons standard applicable to dispositive motions, Defendants indicate that the
23
identified documents should not be sealed, with the exception of Plaintiffs’ Exhibit B. Plaintiffs’
24
Exhibit B is an excerpt from UCPD’s Operational Review for November 9, 2011, designated
25
confidential by Defendants. The UC Defendants request that the Court seal only a portion of the
26
document, and provide a redacted version of the document removing only those portions that they
27
contend should be sealed. Defendants assert that public disclosure of the document, which
28
1
provides information about police strategy and tactics, could assist individuals in circumventing
2
legitimate policy activity. They offer a redacted version of the document as Exhibit 1 to their
3
response to the motion. (Dkt. No. 396.)
The Court finds that the redactions in Exhibit 1 are narrowly tailored to cover only the
4
5
sensitive strategic details contained in the plan, which are properly sealed based upon a showing of
6
compelling reasons by the UC Defendants.
The motion to seal is therefore GRANTED IN PART as to Plaintiff’s Exhibit B, which should
7
be replaced with the redacted version submitted at Docket No. 396-2. Sealing is DENIED as to the
9
remaining documents submitted with Plaintiffs’ administrative motion at Docket No. 390. They
10
shall be filed on the public docket within seven days of this order. See Civ. Local Rules 79-5(f).
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
8
2.
Dkt. No. 401
Plaintiffs’ filed their “Second Administrative Motion to File Documents Under Seal” at
12
13
Docket No. 401, seeking to seal two audio recordings and 16 documents. Defendants again
14
concede that the more stringent sealing standard applies to these documents, and seek only to seal
15
the redacted portions of the Operational Plan document, submitted here as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 4 on
16
their Exhibit Disc 1. This Exhibit 4 essentially corresponds to Exhibit B submitted with Docket
17
No. 390, but includes one page that was omitted from the prior version. As stated above, the
18
Court finds that Defendants have established compelling reasons to seal the redacted portions of
19
the document.
The motion to seal is therefore GRANTED IN PART as to Plaintiff’s Exhibit 4 on Disc 1,
20
21
which should be replaced with the redacted version submitted at Docket No. 396-2. The
22
remaining documents filed with Plaintiffs’ Motion at Docket No. 401 are not sealed. Sealing is
23
DENIED as to the remaining documents submitted with Plaintiffs’ administrative motion at Docket
24
No. 401. They shall be filed on the public docket within seven days of this order. See Civ. Local
25
Rules 79-5(f).
26
3.
27
28
Dkt. No. 416
Plaintiffs filed the Administrative Motion to File Documents Under Seal at Docket No.
416 in connection with their opposition to Defendants’ cross-motions for summary judgment.
2
1
Plaintiffs seek to seal Exhibit A, a chart they created in support of part of their arguments; Exhibit
2
B, an unredacted version of their opposition the UC Administrator Defendants’ Motion for
3
Summary Judgment, and certain documents designated as confidential by Defendants (Exhibits 1-
4
7, 31-35, and 37 in support of their opposition). As above, recognizing that the higher standard
5
applies, Defendants concede that all documents should be publicly available.
6
Consequently, the motion to seal at Docket No. 416 is DENIED. All documents filed under
7
seal in connection with the administrative motion at Docket No. 416 should be filed on the public
8
docket within seven days of this order. See Civ. Local Rule 79-5(f).
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
This terminates Dkt. Nos. 390, 401, and 416.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 24, 2016
______________________________________
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
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?