Sommers et al v. City of Santa Clara et al

Filing 52

ORDER DENYING 42 MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL. Signed by Judge Beth Labson on 12/24/2020. (blflc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/24/2020)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5

SAN JOSE DIVISION

6
7

AMANDA SOMMERS, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

8

CITY OF SANTA CLARA, et al.,

[Re: ECF 42]

Defendants.

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO FILE
UNDER SEAL

v.

9
10

Case No. 17-cv-04469-BLF

12
13

Pursuant to Civil Local Rules 7-11 and 79-5, Defendants move for administrative relief to

14

file under seal Exhibit B to the Declaration of Alexander Jason, which Defendants filed in support

15

of their motion for summary judgment. See Mot., ECF 42. Plaintiffs did not respond to this motion

16

or the Court’s order directing them to respond. See ECF 43. For the reasons stated below, the

17

motion is DENIED.

18
19

I.

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

20

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

21

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

22

U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). Consequently, filings that are “more than tangentially related to the

23

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

24

Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1101-02 (9th Cir. 2016). Filings that are only

25

tangentially related to the merits may be sealed upon a lesser showing of “good cause.” Id. at

26

1097. “Under the compelling reasons standard, a district court must weigh relevant factors, base

27

its decision on a compelling reason, and articulate the factual basis for its ruling, without relying

28

on hypothesis or conjecture.” Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 679 (9th Cir. 2010)

1

(internal quotation marks omitted). “In general, compelling reasons sufficient to outweigh the

2

public’s interest in disclosure and justify sealing court records exist when such court files might . .

3

. become a vehicle for improper purposes, such as the use of records to gratify private spite,

4

promote public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets.” Algarin v.

5

Maybelline, LLC, No. 12CV3000 AJB DHB, 2014 WL 690410, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 21, 2014)

6

(internal quotation marks omitted). “The mere fact that the production of records may lead to a

7

litigant’s embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will not, without more,

8

compel the court to seal its records.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179. Courts have found that a party

9

has demonstrated compelling reasons warranting sealing where “confidential business material,
marketing strategies, product development plans could result in improper use by business

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

competitors seeking to replicate [the company’s] business practices and circumvent the time and

12

resources necessary in developing their own practices and strategies.” Algarin, 2014 WL 690410,

13

at *3. Sealing motions filed in this district also must be “narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of

14

sealable material, and must conform with Civil L.R. 79-5(d).” Civil L.R. 79-5(b). Under Civil

15

Local Rule 79-6(d), the submitting party must attach a “proposed order that is narrowly tailored to

16

seal only the sealable material” which “lists in table format each document or portion thereof that

17

is sought to be sealed.” In addition, a party moving to seal a document in whole or in part must file

18

a declaration establishing that the identified material is “sealable.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(A).

19

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

20

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

21

Where the moving party requests sealing of documents because they have been designated

22

confidential by another party or a non-party under a protective order, the burden of establishing

23

adequate reasons for sealing is placed on the designating party or non-party. Civ. L.R. 79-5(e).

24

The moving party must file a proof of service showing that the designating party or non-party has

25

been given notice of the motion to seal. Id. “Within 4 days of the filing of the Administrative

26

Motion to File Under Seal, the Designating Party must file a declaration . . . establishing that all of

27

the designated material is sealable.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1). “If the Designating Party does not file a

28

responsive declaration . . . and the Administrative Motion to File Under Seal is denied, the
2

1

Submitting Party may file the document in the public record no earlier than 4 days, and no later

2

than 10 days, after the motion is denied.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(2)

3

II.

DISCUSSION
This motion concerns evidence submitted by the Defendants in support of their motion for

4
5

summary judgment, which goes to the heart of the merits of this case. Accordingly, the

6

compelling reasons standard applies. Defendants’ stated reasons for sealing are due to the graphic

7

nature of the photos and Defendants’ belief that Plaintiffs “may” consider these photographs to

8

implicate the right to privacy and “may” prefer that the images are not publicly filed. Mot. 2.

9

However, Plaintiffs did not respond to this sealing request. Additionally, the Court finds
Defendants’ suggestion that the photos are “graphic” does not establish how Plaintiffs will be

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

harmed by their publication. See Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th

12

Cir. 1992) (holding that “broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples or

13

articulated reasoning” are not sufficient).

14

III.

15

ORDER
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ motion to file under seal is DENIED.

16
17
18
19

Dated: December 24, 2020
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3