Doe 1 et al v. Nielsen et al

Filing 422

ORDER GRANTING 363 DEFENDANTS ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL PORTIONS OF THE PUBLIC TRANSCRIPT FOR THE MAY 21, 2020 HEARING. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 9/22/2020.(blflc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/22/2020)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5

SAN JOSE DIVISION

6
7

JANE DOE 1, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

8
v.

9
10

CHAD F. WOLF, et al.,
Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

13

15
16
17
18

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO
SEAL PORTIONS OF THE PUBLIC
TRANSCRIPT FOR THE MAY 21, 2020
HEARING
[Re: ECF 363]

12

14

Case No. 18-cv-02349-BLF

Before the Court is Defendants’ administrative motion to seal portions of the public
transcript for the May 21, 2020 hearing before this Court. See Mot., ECF 363. Plaintiffs oppose
one of Defendants’ proposed redactions. See Opp’n, 372. The Court has considered the parties’
briefs and declarations concerning this motion. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendants’
administrative motion.
I.

19

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 Cnty. 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.

27
28

Sealing motions filed in this district also must be “narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of
sealable material, and must conform with Civil L.R. 79-5(d).” Civil L.R. 79-5(b). Under Civil

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

adequate reasons for sealing is placed on the designating party or non-party. Civ. L.R. 79-5(e).
The moving party must file a proof of service showing that the designating party or non-party has

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

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

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

II.

DISCUSSION
This sealing motion concerns portions of a transcript of the May 21, 2020 hearing before

18
19

this Court regarding the merits of Plaintiffs’ motion requesting leave to file an amended

20

complaint. Mot. 2. This Court has previously applied the compelling reasons standard for sealing a

21

complaint, see Order, ECF 401, and will apply the same standard to the hearing transcript

22

concerning the merits warranting an amended complaint. The Court finds that Plaintiff has

23

demonstrated compelling reasons for sealing the portions of the hearing transcript as set forth

24

below.

25
26
27
28

ECF No.
363-2

Document to be Sealed
Tr. of May 21, 2020
hearing

Result
GRANTED as to
as to portions of
the document
highlighted at:
7:7, 20-21
2

Reasoning
This document contains highly
sensitive counterterrorism
intelligence, methods, and
techniques. Decl. of Gabriel K.
Poling (“Poling Decl.”) ¶ 11, ECF

363-4. If disclosed, this information
would provide terrorists, their
associates, and other criminals with
a roadmap of a procedure by which
law enforcement gathers, evaluates,
analyzes, and shares information
concerning them or other terrorists
or criminals. Id. ¶ 12. Such
disclosure may cause individuals to
alter their behavior or take
precautions to avoid detection
which would compromise ongoing
and future national security
investigations. Id.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

III.

ORDER
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ administrative motion to seal

portions of the public transcript for the May 21, 2020 hearing before this Court.
This order disposes of ECF 363.

14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16
17
18
19

Dated: September 22, 2020
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3