Elofson v. Bivens et al

Filing 66

ORDER CONDITIONALLY GRANTING 54 DEFENDANT STEVEN MUDD'S AMENDED ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 5/18/2016. (blflc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/18/2016)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5

SAN JOSE DIVISION

6
7

GREG STEVEN ELOFSON,

Case No. 15-cv-05761-BLF

Plaintiff,
8
v.
9
10

STEPHANIE BIVENS, et al.,
Defendants.

[Re: ECF 54]

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

ORDER CONDITIONALLY
GRANTING DEFENDANT STEVEN
MUDD’S AMENDED
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE
UNDER SEAL

12
13

Defendant Steven Mudd seeks leave to file under seal his declaration in support of his

14

Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint. See Amended Administrative Motion to File Under

15

Seal, ECF 54.

16

“Unless a particular court record is one traditionally kept secret, a strong presumption in

17

favor of access is the starting point.” Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172,

18

1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). A party seeking to seal

19

judicial records relating to a dispositive motion bears the burden of overcoming this presumption

20

by articulating “compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the

21

general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure.” Id. at 1178-79 (internal

22

quotation marks and citation omitted). In this district, parties seeking to seal judicial records also

23

must narrowly tailor their requests to “seek sealing only of sealable material.” Civil L.R. 79-5(b).

24

Defendant Mudd’s declaration contains information regarding an Adult Protective Services

25

investigation. California law prohibits the disclosure of such information absent court order or

26

other circumstances not present here. See, e.g., Cal. Welfare & Instit. Code §§ 10850, 15633,

27

15633.5. Compliance with state law constitutes a compelling reason for sealing Defendant

28

Mudd’s declaration.

1

However, as a matter of due process, the Court will not consider material in connection

2

with a potentially dispositive motion that is not made available to the opposing party.

3

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendant Mudd’s motion but only upon the condition that he

4

provides an unredacted version of the declaration to Plaintiff Elofson. Defendant Mudd shall

5

notify the Court in writing, on or before May 24, 2016, whether he has provided an unredacted

6

version of the declaration to Plaintiff Elofson.

7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Dated: May 18, 2016
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2