Doe 1 et al v. Nielsen et al

Filing 247

Order by Magistrate Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi granting 217 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal. (vkdlc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/8/2019)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6

SAN JOSE DIVISION

7
JANE DOE 1, et al.,

8

Plaintiffs,

9
v.

10

KEVIN K. MCALEENAN, et al.,

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

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

Defendants.

12

ORDER GRANTING
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE
UNDER SEAL
Re: Dkt. No. 217

13
In connection with plaintiffs’ motion to compel and for sanctions (Dkt. No. 218), plaintiffs

14
15

filed an administrative motion to file portions of the accompanying attorney declaration and an

16

exhibit under seal. Dkt. No. 217. Although the portions sought to be sealed were designated

17

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

18

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

19

administrative motion, as set forth below.
There is a strong presumption in favor of access by the public to judicial records and

20
21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

///

28

///

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

compel discovery and for sanctions. The underlying motion does not address the merits of the

6

parties’ claims or defenses, but rather whether the Court should compel defendants to produce a

7

particular document and sanction defendants for their conduct in discovery. The material to be

8

sealed is only tangentially related to the merits of the case. The Court therefore applies the “good

9

cause” standard of Rule 26(c).

10

The portions of the documents accompanying plaintiffs’ motion to compel that plaintiffs

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

ask to file under seal concern material that defendants have designated confidential. With respect

12

to Exhibit S, the portions sought to be redacted are the identities and contact information for

13

individuals in law enforcement, and the Court finds good cause for sealing that information. With

14

respect to the portions of the declaration of Mariko Hirose that plaintiffs seek to seal, those

15

portions appear to contain information similar to material filed in connection with the parties’ May

16

7, 2019 discovery dispute (Dkt. No. 180). Plaintiffs take the position that the information has

17

already been disclosed in the published opinion in ACLU v. Clapper, 785 F.3d 787 (2d Cir. 2015).

18

However, as the Court previously concluded, it is not clear whether the material defendants have

19

designated here is precisely the same as the information published in Clapper. Dkt. No. 226.

20

Accordingly, the Court grants plaintiffs’ administrative motion and permits sealing of the

21

following materials:

22
23
24
25
26

Document
Declaration of Mariko Hirose
(Dkt. No. 219)

Portion to be Sealed
Pg. 8, lines 9, 13-14

Exhibit S to the Hirose
Declaration

Entire document

27
This order is without prejudice to the parties later challenging the confidentiality designation of
28
2

1
2
3

the sealed documents.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 8, 2019

4
VIRGINIA K. DEMARCHI
United States Magistrate Judge

5
6
7
8
9
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