Hernandez et al v. County of Monterey et al

Filing 650

ORDER DENYING 644 COUNTY'S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 2/13/2019.(blflc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/13/2019)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5

SAN JOSE DIVISION

6
7

JESSE HERNANDEZ, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

8
9
10

v.
COUNTY OF MONTEREY, et al.,
Defendants.

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 13-cv-02354-BLF
ORDER DENYING COUNTY’S
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE
UNDER SEAL
[Re: ECF 644]

12
13

Defendant County of Monterey has filed an Administrative Motion to File Under Seal

14

(ECF 644), seeking to file under seal certain documents the County has submitted in opposition to

15

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Expense. Specifically, the County requests sealing of

16

the Declaration of Anne K. Brereton in Support of Opposition to Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and

17

Exhibits A through D thereto, in their entirety.

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). Consequently, filings that are “more than tangentially related to the

22

merits of a case” may be sealed only upon a showing of “compelling reasons” for sealing. Ctr. for

23

Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1101-02 (9th Cir. 2016). Filings that are only

24

tangentially related to the merits may be sealed upon a lesser showing of “good cause.” Id. at

25

1097. Sealing motions filed in this district also must be “narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of

26

sealable material.” Civil L.R. 79-5(b). A party moving to seal a document in whole or in part

27

must file a declaration establishing that the identified material is “sealable.” Civ. L.R. 79-

28

5(d)(1)(A).

1

The good cause standard governs, because the sealing request relates to evidence offered to
oppose Plaintiffs’ fees motion, which is only tangentially related to merits of Plaintiffs’ claims.

3

The County has not shown good cause for sealing. The County asserts that Exhibits A through D

4

to the Declaration of Anne K. Brereton in Support of Opposition to Motion for Attorneys’ Fees are

5

sealable in their entirety because they have been designated as “CONFIDENTIAL

6

INFORMATION” by the County under the applicable Stipulated Protective Order, meaning that

7

they contain “‘operations records, institutional records, [and] medical records’ that contain

8

‘security-sensitive information’ and ‘confidential personal information.’” Decl. of Anne K.

9

Brereton in Support of Defendants Administrative Motion to File Under Seal at ¶ 2, ECF 644-1.

10

However, “[r]eference to a stipulation or protective order that allows a party to designate certain

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

2

documents as confidential is not sufficient to establish that a document, or portions thereof, are

12

sealable.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(A). Moreover, Exhibits A through D are not operations,

13

institutional, or medical records. They are copies of correspondence between counsel arguing

14

about production of medical records. The documents do mention the names of individuals as to

15

whom medical records are sought. To the extent the County contends that those names should be

16

sealed, the sealing request is not narrowly tailored, because the names easily could be redacted and

17

the remainder of the documents could be filed publicly. Accordingly, the sealing motion is

18

DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to a renewed sealing motion which is narrowly tailored.

19

The Court notes that the County has filed all of its briefing in opposition to Plaintiffs’ fees

20

motion as exhibits to its Administrative Motion to File Under Seal. This is so even with respect to

21

the County’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities, as to which no sealing is requested. As a

22

result, the County’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities cannot be viewed by the public. The

23

County SHALL re-file its Memorandum of Points and Authorities in opposition to Plaintiffs’ fees

24

motion in the public docket.

25
26
27
28

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 13, 2019
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge
2