Lawman v. City and County of San Francisco et al

Filing 81

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu granting in part and denying in part 37 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting in part and denying in part 46 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal. (dmrlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/5/2016)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

GARY RICHARD LAWMAN,

Case No. 15-cv-01202-DMR

Plaintiff,
8
v.

ORDER RE: MOTIONS TO SEAL

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN
FRANCISCO, et al.,

Re: Dkt. Nos. 37, 46

Defendants.

12

Defendants move to file portions of their motion for summary judgment under seal.

13

[Docket No. 37.] Plaintiff also seeks to file portions of his opposition to the motion for summary

14

judgment under seal. [Docket No. 46.]

15
16

I.

LEGAL STANDARDS

Civil Local Rule 79-5(b) states that “no document may be filed under seal (i.e., closed to

17

inspection by the public) except pursuant to a court order that authorizes the sealing of the

18

particular document, or portions thereof. A sealing order may issue only upon a request that

19

establishes that the document, or portions thereof, are privileged, protectable as a trade secret or

20

otherwise entitled to protection under the law (hereinafter referred to as ‘sealable’).” “The request

21

must be narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material, and must conform with Civil

22

L.R. 79-5(d).” Id. Furthermore, “[r]eference to a stipulation or protective order that allows a

23

party to designate certain documents as confidential is not sufficient to establish that a document,

24

or portions thereof, are sealable.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(A).

25

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5(e), a party must file under seal a document designated as

26

confidential by the opposing party or a document containing information so designated by an

27

opposing party. “Within 4 days of the filing of the Administrative Motion to File Under Seal, the

28

Designating Party must file a declaration as required by subsection 79-5(d)(1)(A) establishing that

1

all of the designated material is sealable.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1). “If the Designating Party does

2

not file a responsive declaration as required by subsection 79-5(e)(1) and the Administrative

3

Motion to File Under Seal is denied, the Submitting Party may file the document in the public

4

record no earlier than 4 days, and no later than 10 days, after the motion is denied.” Civ. L.R. 79-

5

5(e)(2).
The Ninth Circuit established standards governing requests to seal in Kamakana v. City &

6
7

County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1180 (9th Cir. 2006). When a party seeks to seal judicial

8

records filed in connection with dispositive motions, a “compelling reasons” standard applies. Id.

9

at 1179. This standard derives from the common law right “to inspect and copy public records
and documents, including judicial records and documents.” Id. at 1178 (citation and internal

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

quotation marks omitted). To limit this common law right of access, a party seeking to seal

12

judicial records must show that “compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings . . .

13

outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure.” Id. at 1178-79

14

(citations and internal quotation marks omitted). “[A] ‘good cause’ showing alone will not suffice

15

to fulfill the ‘compelling reasons’ standard that a party must meet to rebut the presumption of

16

access to dispositive pleadings and attachments.”1 Id. at 1180. As the court in Kamakana stated:
In general, “compelling reasons” sufficient to outweigh the public’s
interest in disclosure and justify sealing court records exist when
such “court files might have become a vehicle for improper
purposes,” such as the use of records to gratify private spite,
promote public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release
trade secrets. . . . The mere fact that the production of records may
lead to a litigant’s embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to
further litigation will not, without more, compel the court to seal its
records.

17
18
19
20
21
22

Id. at 1179 (citing Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978)) (internal citation

23

omitted).

24
25
26
27
28

1

In contrast, a “‘good cause’ showing . . . will suffice to keep sealed records attached to nondispositive motions.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1180 (emphasis added) (citation omitted).
2

II.

1
2

A.

DISCUSSION

Defendants’ Administrative Motion to Seal

Defendants move to seal Exhibits F, G, M, and N to the Declaration of Rebecca Bers in
3
support of their motion for summary judgment, as well as portions of their memorandum of points
4
and authorities in support of the motion that refer to those exhibits. According to Defendants,
5

Plaintiff designated the material as confidential pursuant to the parties’ stipulated protective order.

6
Plaintiff filed the responsive declaration required by Civil Local Rule 79-5(e)(1), in which
7
he indicates that Exhibit F does not need to be filed under seal, and that he does not believe that
8
the descriptions of the four exhibits in the motion for summary judgment reveal any matters that
9
would justify sealing portions of the memorandum of points and authorities. Accordingly,
10

Defendants’ request to seal Exhibit F to the Bers Declaration and portions of their memorandum

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

of points and authorities is DENIED.
12
As to Exhibits G, M, and N to the Bers Declaration, these exhibits contain mental health
13
14
15

records from Plaintiff’s former therapist and psychotherapist and excerpts of deposition testimony
from Plaintiff’s former psychotherapist. Because Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is a
dispositive motion, the court applies the “compelling reasons” standard to Defendants’ motion to

16
seal. The court finds that Plaintiff’s interest in preserving the privacy of his sensitive mental
17
health records constitutes a compelling reason to seal Exhibits G, M, and N, and that the request is
18
19

“narrowly tailored” to seal only sealable material, as required by Civil Local Rule 79-5.
Accordingly, Defendants’ motion to seal Exhibits G, M, and N to the Bers Declaration is

20
GRANTED.
21
22

B.

Plaintiff’s Administrative Motion to Seal

Plaintiff moves to seal the names of two witnesses who provided declarations in support of
23

Plaintiff’s opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. He also seeks leave to refer

24
to these individuals by their initials, M. M. and S. M., in his opposition brief. The two witnesses
25
were arrested for allegedly violating California Penal Code section 647(f) and held in a sobering
26
cell in San Francisco County jail. The witnesses have a privacy interest in their criminal history,
27
and the use of their full names is not relevant to this dispute. Accordingly, the court grants
28
3

1

Plaintiff’s motion to seal the names of the two witnesses and grants Plaintiff leave to refer to the

2

individuals by their initials in his opposition.

3

Plaintiff also moves to seal three pages of the deposition transcript of Kelly Ann Kruger,
which Defendants marked as confidential pursuant to the parties’ stipulated protective order.

5

Defendants filed the responsive declaration required by Civil Local Rule 79-5(e)(1). They argue

6

that the deposition testimony at issue “relates to San Francisco Police Department training

7

scenarios for identifying and interacting with individuals who may be experiencing mental

8

illness,” and that they seek to keep this testimony confidential “in order to maintain the integrity”

9

of testing and training of police recruits and officers. Bers Decl., Nov. 30, 2015 ¶ 3. However,

10

they offer no specifics about how disclosure of this information would impact the “integrity” of

11

police officer testing and training. Further, the request is not narrowly tailored, since it appears

12

that only a small portion of the excerpt addresses “the appropriate response” to a training exercise

13

the witness describes. The court finds that Defendants have failed to meet the “compelling

14

reasons” standard for sealing documents in connection with dispositive motions and DENIES

15

Plaintiff’s motion to seal portions of the Kruger deposition transcript.

16
17

III.

CONCLUSION

Within seven days of the date of this order, the parties shall file the following redacted

18

documents in accordance with this order: 1) Defendants shall file redacted copies of Exhibits G,

19

M, and N to the Bers Declaration; and 2) Plaintiff shall file redacted copies of the declarations of

20

M. M. and S. M., as well as his opposition to Defendants’ summary judgment motion.

21

S

RT

ER

H

27
28
4

R NIA

. Ryu

onna M
Judge D

NO

26

FO

25

ED

RDER
______________________________________
IS SO O
IT
Donna M. Ryu
United States Magistrate Judge

LI

24

Dated: February 5, 2016

A

23

IT IS SO ORDERED.

RT
U
O

22

S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA

UNIT
ED

United States District Court
Northern District of California

4

N

F
D IS T IC T O
R

C