Campbell v. Grounds

Filing 215

ORDER GRANTING [204, 206, 207] SEALING MOTIONS. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 10/24/2022. (blflc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/24/2022)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5

SAN JOSE DIVISION

6
7

DESHAWN LEE CAMPBELL,
Plaintiff,

8

RANDY GROUNDS,

[Re: ECF Nos. 204, 206, 207]

Defendant.

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

ORDER GRANTING SEALING
MOTIONS

v.

9
10

Case No. 12-cv-06089-BLF

12
The parties recently submitted briefing on (1) Petitioner’s claim No. 10 for habeas relief

13
14

and (2) supplemental authorities since 2012. See ECF Nos. 203-209. On July 22, 2022, Petitioner

15

filed a motion to file under seal portions of his (1) Memorandum of Points and Authorities in

16

Support of Claim No. 10 and (2) Exhibits in Support of Claim No. 10. ECF No. 204. On August

17

26, 2022, Respondent filed a motion to file under seal portions of his Memorandum of Points and

18

Authorities in Opposition to Claim No. 10. ECF No. 206. And on September 9, 2022, Petitioner

19

filed a motion to file under seal portions of his (1) Reply brief re: Claim No. 10 and (2) Reply

20

brief re: Supplemental Authorities. ECF No. 207. On October 6, 2022, the Court issued an Order

21

requiring the parties to submit charts for their sealing motions pursuant to the Court’s Standing

22

Orders. ECF No. 210. Respondent filed his chart on October 21, 2022, ECF No. 213, and

23

Petitioner filed his chart on October 23, 2022, ECF No. 214.
The Court has considered the motions and supporting declarations. For the following

24
25
26
27
28

reasons, the motions to seal are GRANTED.
I.

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

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

1

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

2

U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). Consequently, access to motions and their attachments that are

3

“more than tangentially related to the merits of a case” may be sealed only upon a showing of

4

“compelling reasons” for sealing. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092,

5

1101–102 (9th Cir. 2016). Filings that are only tangentially related to the merits may be sealed

6

upon a lesser showing of “good cause.” Id. at 1097.
In addition, in this district, all parties requesting sealing must comply with Civil Local

United States District Court
Northern District of California

7
8

Rule 79-5. That rule requires, inter alia, the moving party to provide “the reasons for keeping a

9

document under seal, including an explanation of: (i) the legitimate private or public interests that

10

warrant sealing; (ii) the injury that will result if sealing is denied; and (iii) why a less restrictive

11

alternative to sealing is not sufficient.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(c)(1). Further, Civil Local Rule 79-5

12

requires the moving party to provide “evidentiary support from declarations where necessary.”

13

Civ. L.R. 79-5(c)(2). And the proposed order must be “narrowly tailored to seal only the sealable

14

material.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(c)(3).

15
16

II.

DISCUSSION
Petitioner and Respondent seek to seal portions of their briefing on claim No. 10 and

17

supplemental authorities, and these documents are more than tangentially related to the case. The

18

parties therefore must show compelling reasons for the requested sealing.

19

The parties seek to seal information about the identity of a witness who provided post-trial

20

testimony to protect the safety of that individual. See ECF Nos. 204-1 ¶ 2, 206-1 ¶ 2, 207-1 ¶ 2;

21

213, 214. The Court finds that the parties have met the compelling reasons standard for sealing

22

the identified information. See Unknown Party v. Ariz. Bd. of Regents, No. CV-18-01623-PHX-

23

DWL, 2021 WL 5002593, at *5 (D. Ariz. Oct. 27, 2021) (finding compelling reasons standard met

24

for “information that, if made public, would reveal the identities of the parties or witnesses who

25

are likely to suffer severe harm if their identities are made public”); Bey v. City of Oakland, No.

26

14-cv-01626-JSC, 2019 WL 3430557, at *18 (N.D. Cal. July 30, 2019) (sealing information

27

regarding “identities of witnesses”). And the proposed redactions are narrowly tailored to seal

28

only sealable material. The Court rules as follows on the documents the parties seek to have
2

1
2
3

sealed:
ECF No.
204-3

Document
Petitioner’s
Memorandum of Points
and Authorities in
Support of Claim No. 10

204-4

Petitioner’s Exhibits in
Support of Claim No. 10
(Part 1)

4
5
6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Portions to Seal
Redactions at: 2:8-11,
13-18; 5:4- 6, 9-11, 1416; 7:11, 22, 24, 28; 8:128; 9:1-21, 25-28; 10:14, 6, 8-21, 23- 27; 11:17, 9-10, 14-15, 19-22,
24-28; 12:1-27; 13:1-28;
14:1-27; 15:1-5, 7- 13,
16-17, 19-28; 16:1-28;
17:1-28; 18:1-28; 19:128; 20: 1-20, 23-26; 21:
1-12, 16, 18-24; 22:1, 324, 27; 23: 4-5, 11, 2025, 27; 24:1, 4-9, 13-15,
18-20, 22-27; 25:1-28;
26:1-14, 19, 21, 25-28;
27:1-24, 27-28; 28:4-12,
14-15, 17, 19-21, 24-28;
29:1-6, 9; 30:20; 31: 2,
4-28; 32:1-20, 22-28;
33:1-5, 7, 9, 14-25, 2728; 34:1, 3-27; 35:1-4, 6,
9-14, 19, 21-27; 36:1-8.
All of Exhibits 1-5, and
those redactions at: 2:6-7;
6:7-9, 11, 13-15; 11:6-7,
9, 14- 21; 19:3, 5, 7-25;
20:1, 3, 5, 9-27; 21: 1-26;
22:6-17, 23-28; 23:1-2, 4,
7, 11- 12, 15, 17-21, 2327; 24:1, 3-4, 6; 26: 9;
74:15-16, 18-19, 22, 2425; 75:1-2, 4-5, 10-11,
13, 16-28; 76:1-9, 11, 14,
16-18, 20-23, 27-28;
77:1, 3-4, 8, 16, 18-21,
23-28; 78:1-11, 14, 1819, 21- 23, 25-28; 79:1, 3,
4-6, 10, 12, 18, 21- 28;
80:1, 3, 4, 11, 13-16, 18,
21-23; 81:9-10, 12-17,
22,
24-28;
82:1-11;
83:13-15; 86:1-2, 5-6, 8,
12-22, 25; 87:1, 5-6, 12,
19-28; 88:11-12, 14-20,
3

Ruling
GRANTED, as
containing information
that could put at risk the
safety of one or more
individuals if made
public.

GRANTED, as
containing information
that could put at risk the
safety of one or more
individuals if made
public.

1
2
3
4
5

204-4

Petitioner’s Exhibits in
Support of Claim No. 10
(Part 2)

206-3

Respondent’s
Memorandum of Points
and Authorities in
Opposition to Claim No.
10

6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

23; 911 :28; 92:1, 5-7, 9,
26, 28; 93:1, 3, 5-7, 9, 13,
18, 25-26; 100:16-18, 21,
23-28; 101:2-12, 14, 17,
19, 21; 102: 4-5, 7-11, 1819, 21, 22-27; 103:23-24;
110: 16-18, 23-25.
Redactions at: 1:1-2, 424; 4:8, 15-16, 18-28;
5:1-28; 6:1-14; 9:2-3;
60:18, 20-28; 61:1-28;
62:1-28; 63:1- 28; 64:128; 65:1-28; 66:1-28;
67:1- 28; 68:1-28; 69:117, 19-28; 70-1-18; 71:128; 72:1-28; 73:1-28;
74:1-28; 75:1-28; 76:128; 77:1-20, 22-26; 78:128; 79:1-14, 18, 25; 80:34, 15- 21, 23, 25, 27;
81:2-3, 6-11, 15-19, 2225, 27; 82:1-17, 19-20,
22-23, 27-28; 83:1-28;
84:1-7, 13, 16, 22-28;
85:1- 3, 5-9, 12-25, 27;
90:14-20, 22-25; 91: 7;
94:1, 3-6, 10, 12, 16-21,
26-28; 95: 1, 6-18, 24-28;
96:1-20; 24-28; 97:1-2, 56, 8, 16, 20-27, 29; 98:9,
11-18, 22, 24; 99:15-16,
18-24; 100:1-24, 29-30,
32; 101:1-14; 103:10-18;
104:3-4;
105:6,
13;
106:10, 13-25; 107:1-26,
28; 108:1-28; 109:1-28;
110:2, 4-5, 11-28, 30-31;
111:8, 10-11, 14-28;
112:1-17, 20, 24-27;
113:1-7, 9, 14, 17-28;
114:1-7, 10-17; 115:2124, 28; 116:1-3.
Redactions at: p. i: 7-8; p.
1: 3-9, 15-18, 22-27; p. 2:
27; p. 3: 1-6, 14-19, 27;
pp. 4 through 9: all lines;
p. 10: 1-8, 14-28; p. 11:
all lines; p. 12: 1-7, 104

GRANTED, as
containing information
that could put at risk the
safety of one or more
individuals if made
public.

GRANTED, as
containing information
that could put at risk the
safety of one or more
individuals if made
public.

28; p. 13: 10- 28; p. 14: 117; p. 15: none; p. 16: 2527; p. 17: 1-2, 25; p. 18:
1-5; p. 19: 14-28; p. 20: 115, 19-21; p. 21: 3-28; p.
22: 1-12.
Petitioner’s Reply re
Redactions at: 4:12, 14Claim No. 10
15, 17-18; 5:16-25; 7:4,
8-9; 8:24; 9:1, 28; 10:1- 6,
8-9, 14-18, 21-22, 28;
11:6; 12:1- 16, 18-23, 25,
28; 13:3-5, 8, 17, 20, 2328; 14:1-2; 16:4, 7-20,
23-28; 17:1-2, 4, 7-16,
18-28; 18:1-4, 9-10, 12,
15, 20-22, 25-28; 19:1-2,
4, 6-7, 10-15, 20, 23-24.
Petitioner’s Reply re
Redactions at: 7:9, 18, 25;
Supplemental Authorities 8:3- 5, 11, 18-21.

1
2
3
4

207-3

5
6
7
8
9
10
207-4

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16

III.

GRANTED, as
containing information
that could put at risk the
safety of one or more
individuals if made
public.

GRANTED, as
containing information
that could put at risk the
safety of one or more
individuals if made
public.

ORDER
For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the sealing motions are

GRANTED.

17
18
19
20

Dated: October 24, 2022
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5