Acedo v. County of San Diego

Filing 70

ORDER denying 68 request to remove Order from Lexis Nexis Database. Signed by Judge Janis L. Sammartino on 1/30/2020. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(jpp)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DANIEL ACEDO,

Case No.: 17-CV-2592 JLS (JLB)
Plaintiff,

12
13
14

ORDER DENYING REQUEST TO
REMOVE ORDER FROM LEXIS
NEXIS DATABASE

v.
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO; PAUL
RICHARDS; CARLOS OLMEDA;
CAROLYN COLVIN; CALIFORNIA
DEPARTMENT OF VITAL
STATISTICS; CALIFORNIA
DIRECTOR OF SOCIAL SERVICES;
DIRECTOR OF THE CALIFORNIA
DEPARTMENT OF CHILD SUPPORT
SERVICES; and BOARD OF THE
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO,

15
16
17
18
19
20
21

(ECF No. 68)

Defendants.

22
23
24

Presently before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Remove Order from Lexis Nexis

25

Database (ECF No. 68). Plaintiff contends that the Court has sealed the case and therefore

26

any Orders from the Court should not be published and accessible by anyone who is not a

27

case participant. Id. at 1–2. Plaintiff points to the Court’s July 16, 2018 Order in which

28

the Court stated that “the Clerk of Court restricted access to documents in this case to only
1
17-CV-2592 JLS (JLB)

1

the parties participating in the case.” Id. (quoting ECF No. 29). Plaintiff contends that the

2

sensitive nature of the case warrants keeping the matter entirely confidential. Id.

3

“[T]he courts of this country recognize 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 (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 & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing Foltz

8

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

9

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

10

particularly because they are independent—to have a measure of accountability and for the

11

public to have confidence in the administration of justice.’” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler

12

Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d

13

1044, 1048 (2d Cir. 1995)).

14

Here, the Court has not sealed the entire case and does not find that such action is

15

necessary or appropriate. Both Parties have sought the Court’s permission to file juvenile

16

records and other sensitive documents under seal and the Court has granted those requests

17

when appropriate. The Court recognizes the sensitive nature of the facts in this case;

18

however, these considerations do not outweigh the strong presumption in favor of access.

19

The remaining documents, including this Court’s Orders, shall remain accessible to the

20

public. The Court therefore DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion.

21
22

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 30, 2020

23
24
25
26
27
28
2
17-CV-2592 JLS (JLB)