Hutchins v. Lizarraga

Filing 39

ORDER GRANTING 38 ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on August 19, 2020. (blflc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/19/2020)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5

SAN JOSE DIVISION

6
7

KENNETH HUTCHINS,
Plaintiff,

8
v.

9
10

JOE A. LIZARRAGA,

ORDER GRANTING
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE
UNDER SEAL

Defendant.

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 17-cv-03921-BLF

12
On August 18, 2020, Petitioner, by and through his counsel of record, filed an ex parte

13
14

administrative motion to file under seal the declaration of appointed counsel, which counsel filed

15

to support her ex parte application for replacing appointed counsel. See Mot., ECF 38; Appl., ECF

16

37. For the reasons stated below, the administrative motion to seal at ECF 38 is GRANTED.

17

I.

LEGAL STANDARD

18

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

19

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

20

447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597

21

& n.7 (1978)). Consequently, filings that are “more than tangentially related to the merits of a

22

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

23

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; see also Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (“[T]he public has less of a need for access to court

26

records attached only to non-dispositive motions because those documents are often unrelated, or

27

only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action.”). Parties moving to seal the

28

documents attached to such motions must meet the lower “good cause” standard of Rule 26(c).

1

Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (internal quotations and citations omitted). This standard requires a

2

“particularized showing,” id., that “specific prejudice or harm will result” if the information is

3

disclosed. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210–11 (9th Cir.

4

2002); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c).

5

II.

DISCUSSION
The Court has reviewed the sealing motion and declaration submitted in support thereof.

6
7

This document subject to the motion to seal is only tangentially related to the merits of Petitioner’s

8

habeas claim and thus must meet the good cause standard under Rule 26(c). The Court finds that

9

Petitioner’s counsel has articulated compelling reasons of attorney-client privilege and attorney
work product doctrine to seal the declaration and finds the request is narrowly tailored.

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

III.

12
13
14

CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, Petitioner’s administrative motion to seal at ECF 38 is

GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

15
16
17
18

Dated: August 19, 2020
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2