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

Filing 130

ORDER GRANTING 122 , 125 MOTIONS TO SEAL. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 2/8/2019. (blflc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/8/2019)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5

SAN JOSE DIVISION

6
7

ABHIJIT PRASAD,
Plaintiff,

8

GAIL SIMMONS, et al.,

[ECF 122, 125]

Defendants.

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS TO
SEAL

v.

9
10

Case No. 15-cv-04933-BLF

12
13

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

14

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

15

Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (ECF 101). ECF 122, 125. For the reasons stated

16

below, the motions are GRANTED.

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
8
9
10

II.

DISCUSSION
The Court finds that the parties have articulated compelling reasons to seal the submitted

documents. The Court’s rulings on the sealing requests are set forth below.
A.
ECF No.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

Document to be
Sealed:

Result

Exhibit 5D to the
Weissburg Decl. –
Child Abuse Central
Index records of
Plaintiff

GRANTED as to
redacted portions.

Contains Plaintiff’s personally
identifying information.
Weissburg Decl. ISO Sealing ¶ 9, ECF
122-1. Thus, compelling reasons exist
to seal the document.

101-2
107-2

Exhibit 5F to the
Weissburg Decl. –
Child Abuse Central
Index records of
Plaintiff

GRANTED as to
entire document.

Contains minors’ personally identifying
information, as well as allegations of
sexual abuse of minors.
Weissburg Decl. ISO Sealing ¶ 9.
Thus, compelling reasons exist to seal
the document.

101-2
107-2

Exhibit 5G to the
GRANTED as to
Weissburg Decl. –
redacted portions.
CWS/CMS screenshot
of Plaintiff

Contains Plaintiff’s personally
identifying information.
Weissburg Decl. ISO Sealing ¶ 9.
Thus, compelling reasons exist to seal
the document.

101-2
102-1
107-2
108-1

Exhibit 10A to the
Weissburg Decl. –
California DOJ
response to
subpoena

GRANTED as to
redacted portions.

Contains minors’ personally identifying
information, as well as personally
identifying information of the Plaintiff.
Weissburg Decl. ISO Sealing ¶ 9.
Thus, compelling reasons exist to seal
the document.

101-2
102-1
107-2
108-1

Exhibit 10B to the
GRANTED as to
Weissburg Decl. –
redacted portions.
Child Abuse or Severe
Neglect Indexing Form
for Plaintiff;

Contains minors’ personally identifying
information, as well as personally
identifying information of the Plaintiff.
Weissburg Decl. ISO Sealing ¶ 9.
Thus, compelling reasons exist to seal.

14

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

Reasoning

101-2
107-2

13

15

ECF 122 re Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment

3

1

ECF No.

2

101-2
102-1
107-2
108-1

3
4

Document to be
Sealed:
Exhibit 10C to the
Weissburg Decl. –
Child Abuse Central
Index Self Inquiry
Request for Plaintiff.

Result
GRANTED.

Reasoning
Contains Plaintiff’s personally
identifying information.
Weissburg Decl. ISO Sealing ¶ 9.
Thus, compelling reasons exist to seal
the document.

5
6

B.
ECF No.

7

ECF 125 re Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment
Document to be
Result
Reasoning
Sealed:

94

Exhibit O to the
Harrison Taylor
Declaration

GRANTED as to
redacted portions.

Contains minors’ personally identifying
information.
Schmid Decl. ISO Sealing ¶ 2, ECF
125-1. Thus, compelling reasons exist
to seal the document.

95

8

Exhibit P to the Judy
McKellar Declaration

GRANTED as to
redacted portions.

Contains minors’ personally identifying
information.
Schmid Decl. ¶ 2. Thus, compelling
reasons exist to seal the document.

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15

III.

CONCLUSION
The motions to seal at ECF 122 and 125 are GRANTED.

16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.

18
19
20
21

Dated: February 8, 2019
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4