Garcia et al v. City of Everett et al

Filing 93

MINUTE ORDER by Judge Richard A. Jones. 47 MOTION to Seal in Support of Opposition to Summary Judgment filed by Manuel G Garcia is GRANTED IN PART. Defendants are directed to file redacted versions of Exhibits 15, 23, 26, 30 and 39 on the public docket on or before 4/20/2015. SEE ORDER FOR DETAILS. (VE)

Download PDF
HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 8 9 10 MANUAL G. GARCIA, individually; SHERMAN MAH, individually; AND RICHARD J. WOLFINGTON, individually, Plaintiffs, 11 12 13 14 15 18 19 MINUTE ORDER v. CITY OF EVERETT, a municipal corporation; DAVID M. FUDGE, individually and his marital community; KATHERINE A. ATWOOD, individually and her marital community, Defendants. 16 17 CASE NO. C14-00030RAJ The clerk issues the following minute order by the authority of the Honorable Richard A. Jones, United States District Court Judge. This matter comes before the court on plaintiffs’ motion to seal opposition brief 20 and exhibits in support of summary judgment. Dkt. # 47. Defendants filed a response in 21 support of this motion, which establishes the basis for sealing specific pages within 22 plaintiffs’ exhibits 15, 23, 26, 30, and 39. Dkt. # 49. The motion is GRANTED IN 23 PART. 24 25 There is a presumption of public access to judicial records and documents. Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978). Therefore, a party must normally 26 27 28 MINUTE ORDER – 1 1 demonstrate “compelling reasons” to seal judicial records attached to a dispositive 2 motion. Kamakana v. City of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006). Here, there is a compelling reason to seal third-party personnel information. See, 3 4 e.g., Zuccaro v. MobileAccess Networks, Inc., 2012 WL 261342, at *4-5 (W.D. Wash. 5 Jan. 30, 2012) (granting motion to seal documents “relating to employees’ private data,” 6 including “financial statements, spreadsheets containing base salaries, targets, and 7 expected bonus and commission compensation…regarding various business and 8 employment decisions.”). However, contrary to the parties’ assumptions the court does 9 not have the ability to seal specific pages of exhibits. The parties are required to file 10 unredacted versions of the exhibits as well as redacted versions on the public docket. The 11 redactions must be narrowly tailored. See Murphy v. Kavo Am. Corp., 2012 WL 1497489 12 (N.D.Cal. 2012) (denying motion to seal entire exhibits, but allowing parties to redact 13 confidential information); Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1183 (noting that redactions are 14 preferable as they “have the virtue of being limited and clear.”). Accordingly, the court issues the following order with respect to the documents 15 16 subject to this motion: 1. Plaintiffs’ Opposition 17 Plaintiffs filed an unredacted version of their opposition (Dkt. # 49) along with a 18 19 redacted version on the public docket (Dkt. # 68). The redacted version addresses the 20 specific lines identified by defendants as confidential. See Dkt. # 83, p. 6 (designating 21 page 28, lines 17-20). No further action is required with respect to plaintiffs’ opposition 22 brief. 23 24 25 2. Exhibits 15, 23, 26, 30, and 39 Defendants have designated the following pages as containing confidential thirdparty personnel information: 26 27 28 MINUTE ORDER – 2 1 Exhibit Bates Number 2 15 COE014868, 14870, 14872, 14874, 14876, 14881, 14883, 3 and 14885. 4 23 COE014415 5 26 COE014876 6 30 COE014798 7 39 COE014827 8 9 The court agrees that these specific pages contain confidential data that should be sealed. Accordingly, defendants are directed to file redacted versions of these exhibits on 10 the public docket on or before April 20, 2015. The redacted versions should contain the 11 entire exhibit, with the specific pages noted above redacted. 12 Dated this 16th day of April, 2015. 13 WILLIAM M. MCCOOL Clerk 14 s/Rhonda Stiles Deputy Clerk 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 MINUTE ORDER – 3

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?