Williams et al v. San Diego, County of et al

Filing 212

ORDER Granting In Part and Denying In Part as Moot Motions to File Documents Under Seal [Doc. Nos. 178 180 190 203 ]. Signed by Judge Michael M. Anello on 12/18/2020. (anh)

Case 3:17-cv-00815-MMA-JLB Document 212 Filed 12/18/20 PageID.4398 Page 1 of 4

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

KATY WILLIAMS, et al.,

12
13
14

Case No.: 17-cv-815-MMA (JLB)
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART AS MOOT
MOTIONS TO FILE DOCUMENTS
UNDER SEAL

Plaintiffs,
v.
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, et al.,

15

[Doc. Nos. 178, 180, 190, & 203]

Defendants.

16
17

On October 26, 2020, the Court issued an order regarding four motions to file the

18

following documents under seal: (1) Defendant’s Exhibits 1–6, 8, and 9 in support of its

19

motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 178); (2) Plaintiffs’ Exhibits 1–13 and 16–43 in

20

support of their motion for partial summary judgment (Doc. No. 180); (3) Defendant’s

21

Exhibits A–J in support of its opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary

22

judgment (Doc. No. 190); and (4) Defendant’s Exhibits A–F in support of its opposition

23

to Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction (Doc. No. 193). 1 See Doc. No. 196.

24

Specifically, the Court asked the parties to parse through each document and explain how

25

it meets the standard for sealing. See id. Both parties filed supplemental briefs. See

26
27
1

28

The Court previously denied one of Defendant’s motions to seal—Doc. No. 193—as moot. See Doc.
No. 211.
-1-

17-cv-815-MMA (JLB)

Case 3:17-cv-00815-MMA-JLB Document 212 Filed 12/18/20 PageID.4399 Page 2 of 4

1

Doc. Nos. 201, 205. Defendant then moved to seal Exhibit A to its supplemental brief.

2

See Doc. No. 203.

3

Courts have historically recognized a “general right to inspect and copy public

4

records and documents, including judicial records and documents.” Nixon v. Warner

5

Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 n.7 (1978). “Unless a particular court record is one

6

‘traditionally kept secret,’ a ‘strong presumption in favor of access is the starting point.”

7

Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting

8

Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). “The

9

presumption of access is ‘based on the need for federal courts, although independent—

10

indeed, particularly because they are independent—to have a measure of accountability

11

and for the public to have confidence in the administration of justice.” Ctr. for Auto

12

Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting United States

13

v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1048 (2d Cir. 1995)).

14

Generally, a party seeking to seal a judicial record can overcome the presumption

15

in favor of access by “articulat[ing] compelling reasons supported by specific factual

16

findings . . . that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring

17

disclosure, such as the public interest in understanding the judicial process.” Kamakana,

18

447 F.3d at 1178 (citations omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted). “In turn, the

19

court must ‘conscientiously balance[ ] the competing interests’ of the public and the party

20

who seeks to keep certain judicial records secret.” Id. at 1179 (quoting Foltz, 331 F.3d at

21

1135). “Compelling reasons must continue to exist to keep judicial records sealed.” In

22

re Midland Nat. Life Ins. Co. Annuity Sales Practices Litig., 686 F.3d 1115, 1119 (9th

23

Cir. 2012) (citing Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179). “What constitutes a ‘compelling

24

reason’ is ‘best left to the sound discretion of the trial court.’” Ctr. For Auto Safety, 809

25

F.3d at 1097 (quoting Nixon, 435 U.S. at 599).

26

In their supplemental briefs, the parties identified several exhibits which are more

27

appropriately redacted than sealed. For example, Plaintiffs withdrew their request to seal

28

Exhibits 4–11 in support of their motion for partial summary judgment and instead filed
-2-

17-cv-815-MMA (JLB)

Case 3:17-cv-00815-MMA-JLB Document 212 Filed 12/18/20 PageID.4400 Page 3 of 4

1

redacted versions. See Doc. Nos. 201, 202. Similarly, Defendant withdrew its request to

2

seal Exhibits 3–6 and 8–9 in support of its summary judgment motion and Exhibits C–J

3

in opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment. See Doc. No. 205.

4

Defendant also filed redacted versions of these exhibits. See Doc. Nos. 207, 210. The

5

Court therefore DENIES the requests to seal these exhibits as MOOT.

6

The Court has parsed the remaining exhibits. Many consist of records released

7

pursuant to a Juvenile Court Order and therefore must be sealed. See Cal. Welf. & Instit.

8

Code § 827; see also Estate of Maldonado v. Sec’y of the Cal. Dep’t of Corr. & Rehab.,

9

No. 2:06CV02696-MCE/GGH, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91084, at *13-16 (E.D. Cal. Nov.

10

30, 2007) (reasoning that while section 827 “could not purport to bind the federal courts .

11

. . the privilege advanced by the state statute was a strong one, and . . . comity required

12

that the state law be respected if at all possible given the needs of this case”). The

13

remaining documents reference the Juvenile Court proceedings and records or otherwise

14

discuss the investigation, which includes sensitive information. The nature of the

15

investigation presents a compelling reason to seal these documents that outweighs the

16

presumption in favor of public access. See, e.g., Warren v. Unknown, No. 2:17-cv-02188

17

TLN AC PS, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 177933, at *7 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 25, 2017).

18

Accordingly, good cause appearing, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motions IN

19

PART and GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion IN PART. The following Exhibits are to be

20

filed under seal:

21
22
23

1. Defendant’s Exhibits 1–2 in support of its motion for summary judgment [to be
relodged as ordered below];
2. Plaintiff’s Exhibits 1–3, 12–13, and 16–42 in support of their motion for partial

24

summary judgment [Doc. Nos. 183; 183-1; 183-2; 183-11 through 13; 183-13

25

through 39];

26
27
28

3. Defendant’s Exhibits A–B in opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion for partial
summary judgment [to be relodged as ordered below]; and
4. Defendant’s Exhibit A in support of its supplemental brief [Doc. No. 204].
-3-

17-cv-815-MMA (JLB)

Case 3:17-cv-00815-MMA-JLB Document 212 Filed 12/18/20 PageID.4401 Page 4 of 4

1

The Court ORDERS Defendant to relodge Exhibits 1–2 in support of its motion

2

for summary judgment and Exhibits A–B in opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion for partial

3

summary judgment within five (5) business days and DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to

4

then file the documents UNDER SEAL. 2

5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 18, 2020

7

_____________________________
HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO
United States District Judge

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2

The Clerk of Court is unable to file only certain pages of a single docket entry under seal. As such, for
those instances where Defendant lodged multiple exhibits as a single docket entry, see Doc. Nos. 179 &
191, the exhibits to be filed under seal must be relodged.
-4-

17-cv-815-MMA (JLB)