Utah Coalition of La Raza et al v. Herbert et al

Filing 24

MOTION to Seal Document Declarations of Doe Plaintiffs (Jane Doe #1, John Doe #1, and John Doe #2) filed by Plaintiffs Centro Civico Mexicano, Alicia Cervantes, Coalition of Utah Progressives, Eliana Larios, Latin American Chamber of Commerce, Milton Ivan Salazar-Gomez, Salt Lake City Brown Berets, Service Employees International Union, Utah Coalition of La Raza, Workers United Rocky Mountain Joint Board. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Goddard, Darcy)

Linton Joaquin*
Karen C. Tumlin*
Shiu-Ming Cheer*
Melissa S. Keaney*
NATIONAL IMMIGRATION LAW
CENTER
3435 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2850
Los Angeles, California 90010
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Omar C. Jadwat*
Andre Segura*
Elora Mukherjee*
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
FOUNDATION
125 Broad Street, 18th Floor
New York, New York 10004
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

Cecillia D. Wang*
Katherine Desormeau*
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES
UNION FOUNDATION IMMIGRANTS’
RIGHTS PROJECT
39 Drumm Street
San Francisco, California 94111
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Darcy M. Goddard (USB No. 13426)
Esperanza Granados (USB No. 11894)
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES
UNION OF UTAH FOUNDATION, INC.
355 North 300 West
Salt Lake City, Utah 84103
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Bradley S. Phillips*+
MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP
355 South Grand Avenue
Thirty-Fifth Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071-1560
Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]

(* Pro hac vice motion pending)
(+ Counsel for all plaintiffs except SEIU and
Workers’ United)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
CENTRAL DIVISION
Utah Coalition of La Raza, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Governor Gary Herbert and Attorney General
Mark Shurtleff,
Defendants.

DOE PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR
LEAVE TO FILE DECLARATIONS
UNDER SEAL
Case No. 2:11-cv-00401-BCW
Judge: Brooke C. Wells

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
Pursuant to DUCiv R 5-2(a), Plaintiffs Jane Doe #1, John Doe #1, and John Doe #2
(collectively, “Doe Plaintiffs”) respectfully request leave to submit under seal their declarations
in support of: (i) the Doe Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to Proceed Under Pseudonyms (“Doe
Motion”); and (ii) Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction.
ARGUMENT
As explained more fully in the Doe Motion (docket no. 19) and Memorandum in Support
(docket no. 20), public disclosure of the Doe Plaintiffs’ identities and participation in this lawsuit
would seriously jeopardize the very constitutional protections they and the other plaintiffs seek
to vindicate. The Doe Plaintiffs—who are all either undocumented or have family members who
are undocumented—reasonably fear that, if their identities were to become public, there would
be an increased risk that they or their family members would be subjected to unconstitutional
detention by state or local law enforcement officials acting under the auspices of HB 497. They
also fear that they or their family members could suffer adverse immigration consequences, up to
and including immigration detention and removal if their identities were revealed. Moreover,
given the heated debate over immigration both in Utah and in the United States as a whole, the
Doe Plaintiffs fear harassment and even physical harm if their identities and personal stories are
disclosed publicly in connection with this lawsuit.
Under the facts of this case, the Doe Plaintiffs’ concerns are justified, and provide ample
basis not just for the Court to grant them leave to file their declarations under seal but also for the

1

Court to grant the pending Doe Motion allowing them to proceed under pseudonyms.1 See, e.g.,
Lozano v. Hazleton, 496 F. Supp. 2d 477, 508-09 (M.D. Pa. 2007), aff’d in part, 620 F.3d 170;
Keller v. Fremont, No. 10-0270, 2011 WL 41902, *2 (D. Neb. Jan. 5, 2011); see also EEOC v.
BICE of Chicago, 229 F.R.D. 581, 583 (N.D. Ill. 2005) (granting protective order because
deposition “questions about immigration status are oppressive [and] . . . constitute a substantial
burden on the parties”).
The public will not be adversely affected, and the defendants will suffer no prejudice, if
the Doe Plaintiffs are granted leave to submit their declarations under seal. See, e.g., Doe v.
Barrow County, Georgia, 219 F.R.D. 189, 193 (N.D. Ga. 2003) (“The resolution of the
underlying constitutional issue in this case . . . will be decided in an open and public forum.
Should this case progress to trial, the public will be free to attend the proceedings. . . . In the end,
the only thing potentially being shielded from the public is plaintiff’s name and any court
proceedings or opinions that might be necessary to determine standing.”); S. Methodist Univ.
Ass’n v. Wynne & Jaffe, 599 F.2d 707, 713 (5th Cir. 1979) (noting that lawsuits “challenging the
constitutional, statutory, or regulatory validity of government activity . . . involve no injury to the
Government’s reputation”).
The Doe Plaintiffs’ identities are irrelevant to the constitutional claims alleged by them
and the other plaintiffs. If the Court grants this motion and the Doe Plaintiffs are permitted to
file their declarations under seal, they are willing concurrently to file and make available to the

Indeed, if the Court determines to grant the Doe Motion, then the Doe Plaintiffs would
necessarily have to file their declarations under seal in order to protect the rights established by
that ruling.
1

2

defendants and to the public redacted copies of their declarations that will omit only their
identifying information.2
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Doe Plaintiffs respectfully request that their Motion For
Leave to Submit Declarations Under Seal be granted.

Dated: May 4, 2011

Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Darcy M. Goddard
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
OF UTAH FOUNDATION, INC.
/s/ Karen C. Tumlin
NATIONAL IMMIGRATION LAW CENTER
/s/ Cecillia D. Wang
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
FOUNDATION, IMMIGRANTS’
RIGHTS PROJECT
/s/ Elora Mukherjee
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
FOUNDATION, RACIAL JUSTICE PROGRAM
/s/ Bradley S. Phillips
MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP

If the Court determines that the Doe Plaintiffs should be permitted to proceed under
pseudonyms, but nonetheless determines that the defendants should receive unredacted copies of
the Doe Plaintiffs’ declarations, then the Doe Plaintiffs respectfully request the entry of a
protective order precluding the defendants and their counsel from sharing that information with
any third party.
2

3