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)

Download PDF
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?