Acedo v. Pinedo et al

Filing 200

ORDER Re Plaintiff's 127 Motion to Seal Portions of the Record. Plaintiff's motion is Granted In Part and Denied In Part. The Clerk Shall replace the image of ECF No. 116-16 with a new version of the image that redacts Plaintiff's social security number from Exhibit B and his birth date from Exhibits A and B. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mitchell D. Dembin on 10/12/16. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(cap)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10
11
12
13
14

Case No.: 14cv903-JAH-MDD

DANIEL ACEDO,
Plaintiff,

ORDER RE PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO SEAL PORTIONS
OF THE RECORD

v.
ERNESTO PINEDO, et al.,
Defendants.

[ECF NO. 127]

15
16

On May 25, 2016, Plaintiff filed this Motion to Seal Portions of the

17

Record. (ECF No. 127). Plaintiff identifies the documents he seeks to

18

redact or seal by their exhibit designation, but Plaintiff does not

19

identify the docket number and does not identify which motion these

20

documents pertain to. Nevertheless, the Court has reviewed the docket

21

and, with the exceptions noted below, has discerned that Plaintiff is

22

referring to the following documents and information:

23

 “Exhibit C2 sub-exhibits A, B, C, D” – unable to identify;

24

 “Exhibit A call for service pp. 2 the ID Number, Age, DOB” –

25

ECF No. 116-16 at 6 (driver’s license number, age, DOB);
1
14cv903-JAH-MDD

1

 “Exhibit B Castro’s report pp. 2 the ID Number, Social

2

Security Number, Other ID Numbers and DOB” – ECF No.

3

116-16 at 12 (driver’s license number, social security

4

number, CII Number, FBI No., DOB);

5
6

 “Exhibit C Pinedo’s report should be sealed because it may
be used for public scandal” – ECF No. 116-16 at 20;

7

 “Exhibit N the 33 photo’s [sic]” – ECF No. 116-16 at 117-157

8

(pictures taken at the trolley station, of the car, of the knife);

9
10
11

 Declarations “attached to the oppossition [sic]” – unable to
identify.
Plaintiff urges sealing/redaction on the grounds that (1) some of

12

these exhibits reveal his private identification numbers, and (2) the

13

“investigatory files attached to the opposition for MSJ be sealed because

14

the attorney’s [sic] of the City of Chula Vista release [sic] those record’s

15

[sic] for gratifying private spite and the investigatory files may create

16

public scandal and will likely cause that libelous statements with

17

pictures will circulate a prime example is Chris Brown.” Plaintiff

18

explains that he is not yet as popular as Chris Brown, but does plan on

19

writing more books like his unpublished “The Ultimate Guide to

20

Success and Profit,” and argues these filings prejudice his “persona.”

21

Judicial records are presumptively open to public inspection.

22

Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010);

23

Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir.

24

2006); Phillips v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1213 (9th Cir.

25

2002). This includes pleadings filed with the court and discovery
2
14cv903-JAH-MDD

1

material attached to those pleadings. Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto

2

Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1134 (9th Cir. 2003).

3

Due to the common law “right to inspect and copy public records

4

and documents, including judicial records and documents,” a party

5

moving to seal judicial records must show that “compelling reasons

6

supported by specific factual findings . . . outweigh the general history

7

of access and the public policies favoring disclosure.” Kamakana, 447

8

F.3d at 1178-79.

9

The Court agrees with Plaintiff that his social security number

10

should be redacted from Exhibit B and his birth date should be redacted

11

from Exhibits A and B. FED. R. CIV. P. 5.2(a) (parties are required to

12

redact social security numbers and birth dates from electronic filings).

13

Except for those redactions, Plaintiff’s requests to seal are “based

14

on flimsy generic explanations.” Open Text S.A. v. Box, Inc., No. 13-cv-

15

04910-JD, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 177484, at *7 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 26,

16

2014). Compelling reasons is a strict standard, requiring the movant to

17

show specific, individualized reasons for sealing the material, “without

18

relying on hypothesis or conjecture.” See Pintos, 605 F.3d at 679. Rule

19

5.2 does not require redaction of the other types of information, ranging

20

from driver’s license and FBI numbers, to pictures taken in public

21

spaces, to sworn declarations describing the events at issue. Nor does

22

Plaintiff offer more than hypothesis or conjecture for why exposing any

23

of this material to the public will lead to public scandal or how it

24

gratifies private spite or constitutes libel.

25
3
14cv903-JAH-MDD

1

The Court finds Plaintiff has not satisfied his burden to show

2

compelling reasons for redaction or sealing of any of the material except

3

for his birth date and social security number. Plaintiff’s motion is

4

GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Accordingly, the Clerk

5

SHALL replace the image of ECF No. 116-16 with a new version of the

6

image that redacts Plaintiff’s social security number from Exhibit B and

7

his birth date from Exhibits A and B.

8
9

IT IS SO ORDERED.

10
11

Dated: October 12, 2016

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
4
14cv903-JAH-MDD