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)

Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?