Roches v. County of Santa Clara et al

Filing 18

ORDER GRANTING 16 DEFENDANT'S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 11/29/2017. (blflc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/29/2017)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5

SAN JOSE DIVISION

6
7

MARINA ROCHES,
Plaintiff,

8
v.

9
10

COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, et al.,
Defendants.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 17-cv-06077-BLF
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE
UNDER SEAL
[Re: ECF 16]

12
13

Before the Court is Defendant County of Santa Clara’s administrative motion to file

14

under seal portions of its request for judicial notice in support of Defendants’ motion to dismiss

15

the Complaint. See ECF 16. The time for Plaintiff to oppose has passed and she has not filed an

16

opposition. For the reasons stated below, the motion to seal is GRANTED.

17
18

I.

LEGAL STANDARD
There is a “strong presumption in favor of access” to judicial records. Kamakana v. City &

19

Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto.

20

Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). A party seeking to seal judicial records bears the

21

burden of overcoming this presumption by articulating “compelling reasons supported by specific

22

factual findings that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring

23

disclosure.” Id. at 1178-79. Compelling reasons for sealing court files generally exist when such

24

“‘court files might have become a vehicle for improper purposes,’ such as the use of records to

25

gratify private spite, promote public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade

26

secrets.” Id. (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978)). However,

27

“[t]he mere fact that the production of records may lead to a litigant’s embarrassment,

28

incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will not, without more, compel the court to seal its

1

records.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179. Ultimately, “[w]hat constitutes a ‘compelling reason’ is

2

‘best left to the sound discretion of the trial court.’” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrslyer Grp., LLC,

3

809 F.3d 1092, 1097 (9th Cir. 2016).
“Despite this strong preference for public access, [the Ninth Circuit has] carved out an

4
5

exception,” id. at 1097, for judicial records attached to motions that are “tangentially related to the

6

merits of a case,” id. at 1101. Parties moving to seal such records need only make a

7

“particularized showing” under the “good cause” standard of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

8

26(c). Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1180 (quoting Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1138).
In this District, parties seeking to seal judicial records must furthermore follow Civil Local

9

Rule 79-5, which requires, inter alia, that a sealing request be “narrowly tailored to seek sealing

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

only of sealable material.” Civil L.R. 79-5(b) (emphasis added). Where the submitting party

12

seeks to file under seal a document designated confidential by another party, the burden of

13

articulating compelling reasons for sealing is placed on the designating party. Id. 79-5(e).

14

II.

DISCUSSION

15

The Court has reviewed Defendant’s sealing motion and the declaration of Bryan K.

16

Anderson in support thereof. See ECF 16, 16-1. Because the sealing motion relates to Defendants’

17

motion to dismiss the Complaint, which is more than tangentially related to the merits of the case,

18

the instant motion is resolved under the compelling reasons standard. See Towers v. Iger, No. 15-

19

CV-04609, 2016 WL 7211142, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 13, 2016). The Court finds that Defendant

20

has articulated compelling reasons to seal the portions sought to be sealed, and the proposed

21

redactions are also narrowly tailored.

22

According to the declaration, the documents redact only the last four digits of the

23

identification number for Plaintiff Marina Roches and the birth year of Walter Roches. Anderson

24

Decl., ECF 16-1 ¶¶ 3-4. Because these documents contain Plaintiff and her son’s confidential

25

personal information, they are appropriately sealable. See, e.g., Seals v. Mitchell, No. 04-3764-

26

NJV, 2011 WL 1233650, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 30, 2011). The proposed redactions submitted by

27

Defendant are also narrowly tailored in that they redact only a few numbers that are not necessary

28

in order for the Court and the public to understand the nature of the documents.
2

1

III.

ORDER
For the foregoing reasons, the sealing motion at ECF 16 is GRANTED. The redacted

2
version of Exhibits 1 and 2 filed into the public record by Defendant in connection with their
3
request for judicial notice (ECF 14-1) is consistent with this order, so no further documents need
4
to be filed.
5
6
Dated: November 29, 2017
7
8
9

______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3