Abhijit Prasad v. Santa Clara County Department of Social Services et al

Filing 120

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART 89 , 98 , 110 MOTIONS TO SEAL. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 1/23/2019. (blflc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/23/2019)

1
2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

4

SAN JOSE DIVISION

5
6

ABHIJIT PRASAD,
Plaintiff,

7
v.

8
9

Case No. 15-cv-04933-BLF

GAIL SIMMONS, et al.,
Defendants.

10

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART MOTIONS TO
SEAL
[Re: ECF 89, 98, 110]

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

Before the Court are the parties’ administrative motions to file under seal portions of their

13

briefing and exhibits in connection with Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF 84) and

14

Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (ECF 101). ECF 89, 98, 110. For the reasons stated

15

below, the motions are GRANTED IN PART, DENIED IN PART with prejudice, and DENIED

16

IN PART without prejudice.

17
18

I.

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

19

and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City & Cty. 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)). Accordingly, when considering a sealing request, “a ‘strong

22

presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.” Id. (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto.

23

Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). Parties seeking to seal judicial records relating to

24

motions that are “more than tangentially related to the underlying cause of action” bear the burden

25

of overcoming the presumption with “compelling reasons” that outweigh the general history of

26

access and the public policies favoring disclosure. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., 809 F.3d

27

1092, 1099 (9th Cir. 2016); Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178–79.

28

However, “while protecting the public’s interest in access to the courts, we must remain

1

mindful of the parties’ right to access those same courts upon terms which will not unduly harm

2

their competitive interest.” Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., 727 F.3d 1214, 1228–29 (Fed.

3

Cir. 2013). Records attached to motions that are “not related, or only tangentially related, to the

4

merits of a case” therefore are not subject to the strong presumption of access. Ctr. for Auto

5

Safety, 809 F.3d at 1099; see also Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (“[T]he public has less of a need

6

for access to court records attached only to non-dispositive motions because those documents are

7

often unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action.”). Parties moving

8

to seal the documents attached to such motions must meet the lower “good cause” standard of

9

Rule 26(c). Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (internal quotations and citations omitted). This
standard requires a “particularized showing,” id., that “specific prejudice or harm will result” if the

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

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

12

1210–11 (9th Cir. 2002); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). “Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by

13

specific examples of articulated reasoning” will not suffice. Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co.,

14

966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992). A protective order sealing the documents during discovery

15

may reflect the court’s previous determination that good cause exists to keep the documents

16

sealed, see Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179–80, but a blanket protective order that allows the parties

17

to designate confidential documents does not provide sufficient judicial scrutiny to determine

18

whether each particular document should remain sealed. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(A) (“Reference

19

to a stipulation or protective order that allows a party to designate certain documents as

20

confidential is not sufficient to establish that a document, or portions thereof, are sealable.”).

21

In addition to making particularized showings of good cause, parties moving to seal

22

documents must comply with the procedures established by Civ. L.R. 79-5. Pursuant to Civ. L.R.

23

79-5(b), a sealing order is appropriate only upon a request that establishes the document is

24

“sealable,” or “privileged or protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under

25

the law.” “The request must be narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material, and

26

must conform with Civil L.R. 79-5(d).” Civ. L.R. 79-5(b). In part, Civ. L.R. 79-5(d) requires the

27

submitting party to attach a “proposed order that is narrowly tailored to seal only the sealable

28

material” which “lists in table format each document or portion thereof that is sought to be
2

1

sealed,” Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(b), and an “unredacted version of the document” that indicates “by

2

highlighting or other clear method, the portions of the document that have been omitted from the

3

redacted version.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(d). “Within 4 days of the filing of the Administrative

4

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

5

79-5(d)(1)(A) establishing that all of the designated material is sealable.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).

6
7

II.

DISCUSSION
The Court has reviewed Plaintiff and Defendants’ sealing motions and the declarations of

8

the designating parties submitted in support thereof. The Court finds that the parties have

9

articulated compelling reasons to seal certain portions of some of the submitted documents. The

10

Court’s rulings on the sealing requests are set forth below.
ECF 89 re Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

A.

12

Defendants seek to seal Exhibits A–I to the Declaration of Darlene Silva in support of

13

Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. ECF 89. Exhibits A–I document the referral,

14

investigation, determination, and contest of a report of child sex abuse, including sensitive

15

information regarding minor victims of alleged sex abuse. ECF 89 at 2. These records were

16

obtained by state court order pursuant to California Welfare and Institutions Code § 827, which

17

governs access to and use of child dependency records, for release only to limited persons for

18

limited purposes. Given the sensitive information in these documents regarding alleged abuse of

19

minor children, the Court finds compelling reasons to seal each of these documents in its entirety.

20

The motion to seal at ECF 89 is GRANTED.

21
22
23
24
25
26
27

B.

ECF 98 re Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment

ECF
No.

Document to be
Sealed:

101-2

Exhibit 4 (A-N) to the
Weissburg Decl. ISO
Pl. MSJ - CWS/CMS
screenshots of Prasad
from the Santa Clara
County records

Result

Reasoning
Contains minors’ personally identifying
information and information regarding
results of alleged abuse of minor
children, as well as personally
identifying information of the Plaintiff.
Weissburg Decl. ISO Sealing ¶ 9, ECF
98-1. Thus, compelling reasons exist to
seal the document.

GRANTED.

28
3

1

ECF
No.

2

101-2

3
4
5

Document to be
Sealed:

Result

Exhibit 5 to the
DENIED
Weissburg Decl. –
WITHOUT
excerpts from the
PREJUDICE.
deposition transcript of
Gale Simmons, with
attachments A–G

6

8
9
101-2

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

Exhibit 7 to Weissburg
Decl. – excerpts from
the deposition
transcript of Michelle
Williams, with
attachment A

GRANTED as to
Plaintiff’s date of
birth.
DENIED WITH
PREJUDICE as to
remainder.

14
15

101-2

16
17
18

Exhibit 10 to
DENIED
Weissburg Decl. –
WITHOUT
excerpts from the
PREJUDICE.
deposition transcript of
Troy Meza, with
attachments A–C

19

21
22

24
25
26
27

There are compelling reasons to seal
Plaintiff’s date of birth, but Plaintiff has
not presented compelling reasons to seal
the remainder.
Plaintiff is ORDERED to file
unredacted versions of this exhibit no
earlier than 4 days and no later than 10
days from the date of this order.
The request is not narrowly tailored.
Though portions may be sealable, as
described above, most of the deposition
excerpt and the attachments thereto are
not. Confidential information regarding
minor children is incredibly sparse.
Plaintiff is ORDERED to file
unredacted versions of this exhibit or a
more narrowly tailored motion to seal
no earlier than 4 days and no later than
10 days from the date of this order.

20

23

The request is not narrowly tailored.
Though some of the documents herein
are sealable, as described above, most
of the deposition excerpt and most of
the attachments thereto are not.
Confidential information regarding
minor children is incredibly sparse.
Plaintiff is ORDERED to file
unredacted versions of this exhibit or a
more narrowly tailored motion to seal
no earlier than 4 days and no later than
10 days from the date of this order.

7

10

Reasoning

C.

ECF 110 re Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Summary
Judgment

Plaintiff seeks to seal Exhibits 2 and 3 to the Prasad Declaration in support of Plaintiff’s
Opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF 107-4). ECF 110. Exhibit 2 is a
Notice of Child Abuse Central Index Listing, dated 4/7/15, and Exhibit 3 is a Request for
Grievance Hearing, dated 4/15/15. These records were obtained by state court order pursuant to

28
4

1

California Welfare and Institutions Code § 827, which governs access to and use of child

2

dependency records, for release only to limited persons. Given the sensitive information in these

3

documents regarding alleged abuse of minor children, the Court finds compelling reasons to seal

4

each of these documents in its entirety. The motion to seal at ECF 110 is GRANTED.

5

D.

6

Defendants did not seek leave to file ECF 94 (Exhibit O to the Harrison Taylor

Re ECF 94, 95

Declaration) or ECF 95 (Exhibit P to the Judy McKellar Declaration) under seal and did not file

8

unredacted copies with the Court. Defendants are hereby ORDERED to file unredacted versions

9

of these exhibits or a motion to seal no earlier than 4 days and no later than 10 days from the date

10

of this order. Any motion to seal must include an unredacted version of these documents, unless

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

7

Defendants do not possess such a version.

12

III.

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

CONCLUSION
The motion to seal at ECF 89, 110 is GRANTED; ECF 98 is GRANTED in part, DENIED

WITHOUT PREJUDICE in part, and DENIED WITH PREJUDICE in part.
Defendants are hereby ORDERED to file unredacted versions of ECF 94 and ECF 95 or a
motion to seal no earlier than 4 days and no later than 10 days from the date of this order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 23, 2019
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5