Campbell v. Feld Entertainment, Inc et al

Filing 229

ORDER by Judge Lucy H. Koh denying 207 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal (lhklc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/2/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

8

SAN JOSE DIVISION

11

SHANNON CAMPBELL,

12
13
14

Plaintiff,
v.
FELD ENTERTAINMENT, INC., et al.,
Defendants.

15
16
17
18
19
20

MARK ENNIS,
Plaintiff,
v.
FELD ENTERTAINMENT, INC., et al.,
Defendants.

21
22

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case Nos.: 12-CV-04233-LHK
13-CV-00233-LHK
ORDER RE: ADMINISTRATIVE
MOTIONS TO SEAL

Before the Court are two administrative sealing motions (ECF Nos. 196, 207), which were

23

filed in connection with Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (ECF No. 188) and

24

Defendants’ Opposition thereto (ECF No. 206).

25

“Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records and

26

documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu,

27

447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597

28
1
Case Nos.: 12-CV-04233-LHK; 13-CV-00233-LHK
ORDER RE: ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO SEAL

1

& n.7 (1978)). Accordingly, when considering a sealing request, “a strong presumption in favor of

2

access is the starting point.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).

3

Parties seeking to seal judicial records relating to dispositive motions bear the burden of

4

overcoming the presumption with “compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings” that

5

outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure. Kamakana, 447

6

F.3d at 1178-79. Compelling reasons justifying the sealing of court records generally exist “when

7

such ‘court files might have become a vehicle for improper purposes,’ such as the use of records to

8

gratify private spite, promote public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade secret.”

9

Id. at 1179 (quoting Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598). However, “[t]he mere fact that the production of

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

records may lead to a litigant’s embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will

11

not, without more, compel the court to seal its records.” Id. Dispositive motions include “motions

12

for summary judgment.” Id.

13

In addition, parties moving to seal documents must comply with the procedures established

14

by Civil Local Rule 79-5. Pursuant to that rule, a sealing order is appropriate only upon a request

15

that establishes the document is “sealable,” or “privileged or protectable as a trade secret or

16

otherwise entitled to protection under the law.” Civ. L. R. 79-5(b). “The request must be narrowly

17

tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material, and must conform with Civil L.R. 79-5(d).” Id.

18

Civil Local Rule 79-5(d), moreover, requires the submitting party to attach a “proposed order that

19

is narrowly tailored to seal only the sealable material” and that “lists in table format each document

20

or portion thereof that is sought to be sealed,” as well as an “unredacted version of the document”

21

that “indicate[s], by highlighting or other clear method, the portions of the document that have

22

been omitted from the redacted version.” Id. R. 79-5(d)(1). “Within 4 days of the filing of the

23

Administrative Motion to File Under Seal, the Designating Party must file a declaration as required

24

by subsection 79-5(d)(1)(A) establishing that all of the designated material is sealable.” Id. R. 79-

25

5(e)(1).

26

With these standards in mind, the Court rules on the instant motions as follows:

27
28
2
Case Nos.: 12-CV-04233-LHK; 13-CV-00233-LHK
ORDER RE: ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO SEAL

1
2

Motion to Seal Standard
196
Compelling
Reasons

Document to be Sealed
Ex. L to Plaintiffs’ Motion for
Partial Summary Judgment:
“Animal Walk Escort Training”
(ECF No. 195-10)

196

Compelling
Reasons

196

Compelling
Reasons

207

Compelling
Reasons

Ex. M to Plaintiffs’ Motion for
Partial Summary Judgment:
“Role of Escorts”
(ECF No. 195-11)
Ex. N to Plaintiffs’ Motion for
Partial Summary Judgment:
San Jose “Risk Assessment”
(ECF No. 195-12)
Ex. O to Plaintiffs’ Motion for
Partial Summary Judgment:
8/1/12 Jeff Stiles Email
(ECF No. 195-13)
Ex. P to Plaintiffs’ Motion for
Partial Summary Judgment:
Oakland “Risk Assessment”
(ECF No. 195-14)
Defendants’ Opposition to
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment
(ECF No. 207-5)

3
4
5
6
7
8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16

Ruling
DENIED WITHOUT
PREJDUICE because the
request is not “narrowly
tailored.” Civ. L. R. 79-5(b).
Defendants should identify
which specific information
within the training guide is
necessary to redact for the
safety of its employees,
animals, and patrons.
DENIED WITH PREJUDICE
because the photograph does
not show anything the public
cannot already see.
DENIED WITHOUT
PREJDUICE because the
request is not “narrowly
tailored.” Civ. L. R. 79-5(b).
Defendants should identify
which specific information
within the documents is
necessary to redact for the
safety of its employees,
animals, and patrons.
DENIED WITH PREJUDICE
because Defendants offer no
compelling reason to seal the
references at page 7:25-28 (i.e.,
footnote 4).

17
18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 2, 2014

_________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
Case Nos.: 12-CV-04233-LHK; 13-CV-00233-LHK
ORDER RE: ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO SEAL