Gonzales v. City Of San Jose et al

Filing 94

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO SEAL by Magistrate Judge Paul Singh Grewal denying 69 (psglc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/19/2014)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 SAN JOSE DIVISION United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 11 MARY LOU GONZALES, et al., Plaintiffs, 12 v. 13 14 CITY OF SAN JOSE, et al., Defendants. 15 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 5:13-cv-00695-BLF ORDER DENYING MOTION TO SEAL (Re: Docket No. 69) 16 Before the court is an administrative motion to seal an internal affairs investigation report. 17 18 “Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records and 19 documents, including judicial records and documents.’” 1 Accordingly, when considering a sealing 20 request, “a ‘strong presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.” 2 Parties seeking to seal 21 22 judicial records relating to dispositive motions bear the burden of overcoming the presumption with “compelling reasons” that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies 23 24 25 26 favoring disclosure. 3 1 Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 & n. 7 (1978)). 2 Id. (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). 3 Id. at 1178-79. 27 28 1 Case No. 5:13-cv-00695-BLF ORDER DENYING MOTION TO SEAL However, “while protecting the public's interest in access to the courts, we must remain 1 2 mindful of the parties' right to access those same courts upon terms which will not unduly harm 3 their competitive interest.” 4 Records attached to nondispositive motions therefore are not subject 4 to the strong presumption of access. 5 Because the documents attached to nondispositive motions 5 6 7 8 9 “are often unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action,” parties moving to seal must meet the lower “good cause” standard of Rule 26(c). 6 As with dispositive motions, the standard applicable to nondispositive motions requires a “particularized showing” 7 that “specific prejudice or harm will result” if the information is disclosed. 8 “Broad allegations of harm, United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 unsubstantiated by specific examples of articulated reasoning” will not suffice. 9 A protective order 11 sealing the documents during discovery may reflect the court’s previous determination that good 12 cause exists to keep the documents sealed, 10 but a blanket protective order that allows the parties to 13 14 designate confidential documents does not provide sufficient judicial scrutiny to determine whether each particular document should remain sealed. 11 15 In addition to making particularized showings of good cause, parties moving to seal 16 17 documents must comply with the procedures established by Civ. L.R. 79-5. Pursuant to 18 Civ. L.R. 79-5(b), a sealing order is appropriate only upon a request that establishes the document 19 4 Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., 727 F.3d 1214, 1228-29 (Fed. Cir. 2013). 20 5 See id. at 1180. 21 6 Id. at 1179 (internal quotations and citations omitted). 22 7 Id. 23 8 24 Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). 9 25 Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992). 10 26 See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179-80. 11 27 28 See Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(A) (“Reference to a stipulation or protective order that allows a party to designate certain documents as confidential is not sufficient to establish that a document, or portions thereof, are sealable.”). 2 Case No. 5:13-cv-00695-BLF ORDER DENYING MOTION TO SEAL

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?