Ortega et al v. San Diego Police Department et al

Filing 62

ORDER denying 54 Motion for Leave to File Over-Length Brief, denying 58 Motion to File Documents Under Seal. The hearing currently on calendar for Monday, June 2, 2014 at 11:30 a.m. on the motion for summary judgment is vacated, along with the b riefing deadlines. Plaintiffs shall file an amended opposition by 6/6/2014, and Defendants may file their Reply by 6/16/2014. After the briefing is filed, the Court may reset a hearing if appropriate, but otherwise the matter will be taken under submission on the papers. Signed by Judge Larry Alan Burns on 5/20/14. (kaj)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

SHAKINA ORTEGA, et al.,

12
13

CASE NO. 13cv87-LAB (JMA)
Plaintiffs,

ORDER DENYING REQUEST
FOR LEAVE TO FILE OVERLENGTH BRIEF;

vs.

14
15
16
17

ORDER DENYING LEAVE TO
FILE EXHIBITS UNDER SEAL;
AND

SAN DIEGO POLICE DEPARTMENT,
et al.,

ORDER VACATING HEARING
AND RESETTING BRIEFING
SCHEDULE

Defendants.

18

Defendants have moved for summary judgment. Plaintiffs first filed a request for leave

19

to file the over-length opposition, then filed an opposition, the body of which is 38 pages

20

long. Defendants have opposed the request to file the over-length opposition. Plaintiffs have

21

also requested leave to file twenty-six exhibits under seal.

22

Leave to Exceed Page Limits

23

Defendants’ opposition to the request aptly points out that the claim here involves a

24

police chase and shooting, taking place within a ten-minute time period, and that a single

25

officer and decedent are involved. While the Court accepts as true Plaintiffs’ characterization

26

of the evidence as voluminous, it is still important to focus on the central issues.

27

The Court has reviewed the pleadings submitted so far, and it appears that the parties

28

have not focused adequately on the standard for summary judgment, but instead are
-1-

13cv87

1

attempting to put on their respective cases. While the defendants’ motion in chief included

2

unnecessary arguments and evidence, it did come in just within the page limit. There is no

3

reason, however, for Defendants to follow Plaintiffs’ example and put on an entire case. It

4

is worth noting that the complaint itself is only 14 pages long.

5

By way of example, the opposition discusses at length multiple witnesses’ statements

6

that the decedent said “I’m gonna sue you,” just before the shooting, and attempts to show

7

that Defendant McCarthy and other police officers attempted to justify the shooting

8

afterwards. It isn’t clear what part, if any, this plays in demonstrating a triable issue of

9

material fact as to liability, damages, or qualified immunity.

10

The request for leave to file an over-length brief is DENIED.

11

Motion to Seal Exhibits

12

There is a strong presumption in favor of public access to dispositive pleadings,

13

including motions for summary judgment and related attachments. Kamakana v. City &

14

County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178–79 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing San Jose Mercury News,

15

Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 187 F.3d 1096 (9th Cir. 1999).and Foltz v. State Farm Mutual Auto. ins.

16

Co., 331 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2003)). Sealing of attachments to a dispositive motion must be

17

supported by “compelling reasons,” even if the attachments were previously filed under seal

18

or protective order. Id. (citing Foltz at 1136). A court’s decision to seal documents under

19

these circumstances must weigh the public’s interest in access to the documents against the

20

right of the party seeking to seal them, and articulate both the compelling reasons and the

21

factual basis for its ruling, without relying on hypothesis or conjecture. Id. at 1179.

22

Here, the motion to seal merely says the supporting documentation ought to be

23

sealed because it is subject to a protective order. This isn’t enough to satisfy the moving

24

party’s burden, nor could the Court issue an order to seal based on information in the

25

motion.

26

The motion to file documents under seal is therefore DENIED.

27

///

28

///
-2-

13cv87

1

Hearing and Briefing Schedule

2

The hearing currently on calendar for Monday, June 2, 2014 at 11:30 a.m. on the

3

motion for summary judgment is VACATED, along with the briefing deadlines. Plaintiffs shall

4

file an amended opposition by June 6, 2014, and Defendants may file their reply by June

5

16, 2014. After the briefing is filed, the Court may reset a hearing if appropriate, but

6

otherwise the matter will be taken under submission on the papers.

7
8
9
10
11

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: May 20, 2014

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS
United States District Judge

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

13cv87