Bresaz et al v. County of Santa Clara et al

Filing 85

ORDER by Judge Lucy Koh granting 46 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal (lhklc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/11/2015)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
SAN JOSE DIVISION

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

LAUREL BRESAZ, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

13
14
15
16

Case No. 14-CV-03868-LHK
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
SEAL

v.

Re: Dkt. No. 46
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, et al.,
Defendants.

17
18

Before the Court is an administrative motion to seal three search warrant affidavits in

19

support of search warrants obtained from the Superior Court of California for the County of Santa

20

Clara. ECF No. 46 (“Motion”). The Santa Clara County Superior Court issued the warrants under

21

seal and has not unsealed them. Id. at 2.

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). Accordingly, when considering a sealing request, “a strong

26

presumption in favor of access is the starting point.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).

27
28

Parties seeking to seal judicial records relating to dispositive motions bear the burden of
1
Case No. 14-CV-03868-LHK
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO SEAL

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

secrets.” Id. at 1179 (quoting Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598).

7

Records attached to nondispositive motions are not subject to the strong presumption of

8

access. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179. Because the documents attached to nondispositive

9

motions “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) of the Federal

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Rules of Civil Procedure. Id. at 1179-80 (internal quotation marks omitted). The “good cause”

12

standard requires a “particularized showing” that “specific prejudice or harm will result” if the

13

information is disclosed. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206,

14

1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002) (internal quotation marks omitted); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). “Broad

15

allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples of articulated reasoning” will not

16

suffice. Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992). Here, the instant

17

motion to seal is related to a motion for leave to file an amended complaint. Mot. at 1. Motions for

18

leave to file an amended complaint are treated as nondispositive. Dunbar v. Google, Inc., No.

19

5:12-CV-003305-LHK, 2012 WL 6202719, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 12, 2012). Therefore, in ruling

20

on the instant Motion, the Court applies the lower “good cause” standard.

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

2
Case No. 14-CV-03868-LHK
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO SEAL

1

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

2

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

3

that have been omitted from the redacted version.” Id.

4

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

5
6
7

Motion to Seal
Document to be Sealed
46
Search warrant affidavits in support of
search warrants obtained from the Superior
Court for the County of Santa Clara.

Ruling
GRANTED.

8
9

IT IS SO ORDERED.

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Dated: August 11, 2015

12

______________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

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

3
Case No. 14-CV-03868-LHK
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO SEAL