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)
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?