Myles v. County of San Diego et al

Filing 83

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 81 Motion to File Documents Under Seal. Dfts should file the redacted exhibits within 7 days of the signature date of this Order. Dfts should file the redacted documents as a new entry under the civil event "redacted documents". Signed by Judge Roger T. Benitez on 1/19/2017. (jah)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MICKAIL MYLES,

Case No.: 15-cv-1985-BEN (BLM)
Plaintiff,

12
13

v.

14

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO SEAL DOCUMENTS
SUBMITTED BY PLAINTIFF IN HIS
OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’
MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT OR ALTERNATIVELY
PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, by and
through the SAN DIEGO COUNTY
SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, a public
entity; and DEPUTY J. BANKS, an
individual,

15
16
17

Defendants.

18
19
20
21
22
23

Defendants have moved to seal certain exhibits submitted in support of Plaintiff’s

24
25

Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. (Docket No. 81.) For the

26

reasons explained below, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART

27

Defendants’ motion.

28

///
1
15-cv-1985-BEN (BLM)

1

I.

LAW REGARDING THE RIGHT OF ACCESS TO JUDICIAL RECORDS

2

In Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589 (1978), the Supreme

3

Court recognized “a general right to inspect and copy public records and documents,

4

including judicial records and documents.” Id. at 597. The main reason for this general

5

right is to accommodate “the citizen’s desire to keep a watchful eye on the workings of . .

6

. government.” Id. at 598. However, the Supreme Court also stated that “the right to

7

inspect and copy judicial records is not absolute.” Id. at 589. “Every court has

8

supervisory power over its own records and files, and access has been denied where court

9

files might have become a vehicle for improper purposes,” such as “to gratify private

10

spite or promote public scandal,” or to serve as a source of “business information that

11

might harm a litigant’s competitive standing.” Id. (internal citations omitted).

12

Except for certain documents “traditionally kept secret,” federal courts begin a

13

sealing analysis with “a strong presumption in favor of access to court records.” Foltz v.

14

State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003). A party seeking to

15

seal a judicial record then bears the burden of overcoming this strong presumption by

16

meeting the “compelling reasons” standard. Id. That is, the party must “articulate[ ]

17

compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings,” id., that outweigh the general

18

history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure, such as the “public interest

19

in understanding the judicial process,” Hagestad v. Tragesser, 49 F.3d 1430, 1434 (9th

20

Cir. 1995). “The mere fact that the production of records may lead to a litigant’s

21

embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will not, without more,

22

compel the court to seal its records.” Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d

23

1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006). “Simply mentioning a general category of privilege, without

24

further elaboration or any specific linkage with the documents, [also] does not satisfy the

25

burden.” Id. at 1184. A party’s failure to meet the burden of articulating specific facts

26

showing a “compelling reason” means that the “default posture of public access

27

prevails.” Id. at 1182.

28
2
15-cv-1985-BEN (BLM)

The “compelling reasons” standard applies fully to dispositive motions, such as the

1
2

one at issue here. Id. at 1179. The “compelling reasons” standard is invoked even if the

3

dispositive motion, or its attachments, were previously filed under seal or protective

4

order. Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1136 (“[T]he presumption of access is not rebutted where . . .

5

documents subject to a protective order are filed under seal as attachments to a

6

dispositive motion. The . . . ‘compelling reasons’ standard continues to apply.”).

7

In turn, the court must “conscientiously balance[ ] the competing interests” of the

8

public and the party who seeks to keep certain judicial records secret. Foltz, 331 F.3d at

9

1135. After considering these interests, if the court decides to seal certain judicial

10

records, it must “base its decision on a compelling reason and articulate the factual basis

11

for its ruling, without relying on hypothesis or conjecture.” Hagestad, 49 F.3d at 1434

12

(citing Valley Broadcasting Co. v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 798 F.2d 1289, 1295 (9th Cir.1986)).

13

II.

14

DISCUSSION
Defendants explain that the submitted exhibits are part of or related to internal

15

affairs investigations by the County of San Diego’s Sheriff’s Department. The

16

documents concern two investigations that occurred before the incident at issue in this

17

lawsuit, and two investigations that occurred after the incident at issue here. These four

18

investigations involved Defendant Deputy Banks, but none resulted in a finding of any

19

wrongdoing by Banks. One document is a complaint filed against a non-party officer.

20

Certain personal identifying information has been redacted in some of the documents.

21

However, other personal identifying information remains, such as the names of officers

22

involved and identifying information of the victims.

23

Defendants argue that these documents satisfy the compelling reasons standard for

24

several reasons. First, the documents “contain sensitive information subject to the

25

privacy rights of third parties and several juveniles.” (Mot. at 5). Second, the documents

26

are subject to the official information and related privileges. Id. Third, the “public

27

release of these limited number of reports could give a member of the public a false

28

impression of Deputy Banks [and] . . . potential[ly] harm [his] reputation.” Id.
3
15-cv-1985-BEN (BLM)

The Court agrees that information about third parties’ personal identifying

1
2

information should not be disclosed to the public. However, the Court disagrees that

3

Defendants’ second and third reasons justify sealing. Plaintiffs rely on California Penal

4

Code section 832.7, California Government Code section 6254, and California Evidence

5

Code section 1043 for the proposition that these statutes exempt the documents from

6

disclosure. This action seeks damages for violations of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights

7

and is brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In a federal question case, “federal common law

8

applies and a state statute, without more, does not shield disclosure in federal court or

9

rebut the strong presumption in favor of public access to judicial records.” Gregory v.

10

City of Vallejo, No. 2:13-cv-00320, 2014 WL 4187365, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 21, 2014)

11

(holding that internal investigation documents should not be sealed entirely but

12

permitting redaction of the names of third parties) (citing Garrett v. City & Cnty. of San

13

Francisco, 818 F.2d 1515, 1519 n.6 (9th Cir. 1987)). The County still must show

14

compelling reasons to seal the documents. See Doe v. City of San Diego, No. 12-cv-689-

15

MMA, 2014 WL 1921742, at *2-3 (S.D. Cal. May 14, 2014) (rejecting argument that

16

state privileges automatically justify sealing). Furthermore, Kamakana explicitly rejected

17

reputational harm as a basis to seal records. Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179.

18

Defendants have failed to demonstrate a compelling reason to shield the exhibits

19

from disclosure in their entirety. Plaintiffs bring a Monell claim and allege that the

20

County has a practice of ignoring serious use of force incidents by its deputies. The

21

exhibits are relevant to this allegation. “Here, where the case involves allegations of

22

police misconduct, the public has a vested interest ‘in assessing the truthfulness of

23

allegations of official misconduct, and whether agencies that are responsible for

24

investigating and adjudicating complaints of misconduct have acted properly and

25

wisely.’” Macias v. Cleaver, No. 1:13-CV-01819-BAM, 2016 WL 3549257, at *4 (E.D.

26

Cal. June 30, 2016) (quoting Welsh v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, 887 F. Supp. 1293,

27

1302 (N.D. Cal. 1995)).

28

///
4
15-cv-1985-BEN (BLM)

1

The Court nevertheless concludes that certain information should be protected

2

from public disclosure. Weighing the public interest involved against the individual

3

privacy concerns, the Court finds that limited redactions will sufficiently protect the

4

privacy interests of all involved. The redactions should include third parties’ names and

5

personal identifying information, such as addresses, social security numbers, and driver’s

6

license numbers. Redactions should include the names of victims, suspects, and

7

witnesses, and where applicable, the names of their family members. However, the

8

names of the law enforcement personnel involved in the incidents, either as alleged

9

wrongdoers or investigators, should not be redacted. “An officer who is being

10

interviewed during an internal investigation, or who is conducting such a probe, knows

11

that what he says or writes could lead to criminal prosecution of other officers or to their

12

termination from the force.” Macias, 2016 WL 3549257, at *6 n.6. However, for safety

13

considerations, an officer’s home address, date of birth, social security number, and

14

driver’s license number should be redacted. Furthermore, for privacy reasons, the Court

15

will allow the redaction of medical and treatment information of Deputy Banks, including

16

the medical provider’s identifying information, for the injuries he sustained in the

17

incident described in Exhibit 19.

18

III.

19

CONCLUSION
For the reasons explained, the Court grants in part and denies in part Defendants’

20

motion to seal. Defendants should file the redacted exhibits within seven (7) days of the

21

signature date of this Order. Defendants should file the redacted documents as a new

22

entry under the civil event “redacted documents.”

23

IT IS SO ORDERED.

24
25

Dated: January 19, 2017

26
27
28
5
15-cv-1985-BEN (BLM)