Doe 1 et al v. Nielsen et al

Filing 226

Order by Magistrate Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi granting 179 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal. (vkdlc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/9/2019)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6

SAN JOSE DIVISION

7
8

JANE DOE 1, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

Case No.18-cv-02349-BLF (VKD)

v.
KEVIN K. MCALEENAN, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER GRANTING
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE
UNDER SEAL
Re: Dkt. No. 179

13

In connection with the parties’ joint discovery letter concerning defendants’ privilege

14

redactions (Dkt. No. 180), plaintiffs filed an administrative motion to file portions of the joint

15

letter under seal. Dkt. No. 179. Although the portions sought to be sealed were designated

16

confidential by defendants, defendants did not file a response pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-

17

5(e)(1). Nevertheless, having considered plaintiffs’ submission, the Court grants the

18

administrative motion, as set forth below.

19

There is a strong presumption in favor of access by the public to judicial records and

20

documents accompanying dispositive motions that can be overcome only by a showing of

21

“compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings.” Kamakana v. City & Cty. of

22

Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178–79 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

23

However, the presumption does not apply equally to a motion addressing matters that are only

24

“tangentially related to the merits of a case.” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d

25

1092, 1101 (9th Cir. 2016), cert. denied sub nom. FCA U.S. LLC v. Ctr. for Auto Safety, 137 S. Ct.

26

38 (2016). A litigant seeking to seal documents or information in connection with such a motion

27

must meet the lower “good cause” standard of Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

28

Id. at 1098–99; Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179–80.

1

Plaintiffs’ motion to seal concerns information submitted in connection with a discovery

2

dispute. The underlying discovery dispute does not address the merits of the parties’ claims or

3

defenses, but rather whether defendants’ assertion of the law enforcement and deliberative process

4

privileges is proper. The material to be sealed is only tangentially related to the merits of the case.

5

The Court therefore applies the “good cause” standard of Rule 26(c).

6

The portions of the joint discovery letter plaintiffs ask to file under seal concern material

7

that defendants have designated confidential, but that plaintiffs contend is already publicly

8

available in a published opinion from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in ACLU v. Clapper,

9

785 F.3d 787 (2d Cir. 2015). However, it is not clear whether the material defendants have
designated here is precisely the same as the information published in Clapper. Accordingly, the

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Court grants plaintiffs’ administrative motion and permits sealing of the material identified on

12

page 6 of the parties’ joint discovery letter.

13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 9, 2019

15
16
VIRGINIA K. DEMARCHI
United States Magistrate Judge

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2