Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-00820/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-00820-18/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EMIL LAWRENCE,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN 

FRANCISCO, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 14-cv-00820-MEJ 

ORDER RE: ADMINISTRATIVE 

MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL

Re: Dkt. No. 115

INTRODUCTION

Pending before the Court is Defendants‟ Motion to Seal Exhibits 5 and 6 to Plaintiff‟s 

Opposition. Defs.‟ Mot., Dkt. No. 115. On March 31, 2017, the Court denied Plaintiff Emil 

Lawrence‟s Motion to Seal Exhibits 1-6 to his Opposition on the ground that Defendants did not 

file a responsive declaration in support of the Motion as required by Local Civil Rule 79-5(e)(1). 

Order, Dkt. No. 114; see Pl.‟s Mot., Dkt. No. 109. Defendants filed the instant Motion that same 

day. Defendants explain that “[d]ue to attorney mistake, defendants failed to file a timely Local 

Rule 79-5 declaration.” Defs.‟ Mot. at 2; see Ceballo Decl. ¶ 2, Dkt. No. 115-1. Having 

considered the parties‟ arguments, the record in this case, and the relevant legal authority, the 

Court issues the following order. 

LEGAL STANDARD

There is a “strong presumption in favor of access” by the public to judicial records and 

documents accompanying dispositive motions. Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 

1172, 1178-79 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 

(9th Cir. 2003)). To overcome this presumption, a “party must articulate compelling reasons 

supported by specific fact[s].” Id. at 1178 (internal quotation and citation omitted); see also 

Case 3:14-cv-00820-TSH Document 116 Filed 04/04/17 Page 1 of 3
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 727 F.3d 1214, 1223 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (finding sealing 

appropriate where companies “filed declarations from employees” that “explained the measures 

the two companies take to keep their product-specific financial information confidential” and “the 

harm they would suffer if their product-specific financial information were made public”). 

Indeed, such showing is required even where “the dispositive motion, or its attachments, were 

previously filed under seal or protective order.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179.

DISCUSSION

A. Exhibits 1-4

Defendants do not seek to seal Exhibits 1-4. Ceballo Decl. ¶¶ 3(1)-(4). Accordingly, the 

Court ORDERS Plaintiff to file unredacted versions of Exhibits 1-4 in the public docket and/or 

lodge them with the Court no later than April 11, 2017. 

B. Exhibits 5 and 6

Defendants argue Exhibits 5 and 6 should be sealed. Id. ¶¶ 3(5)-(6). They contend “[b]oth 

[exhibits] are portions of investigatory files, for unrelated incidents, from the Police 

Accountability Office, previously called the Office of Citizen Complaints („OCC‟).” Defs.‟ Mot. 

at 2. 

“Federal courts have recognized police officers‟ privacy interest in their personnel files, 

but a generalized assertion of a privacy interest is not sufficient to warrant barring disclosure of a 

judicial record.” Pryor v. City of Clearlake (“Pryor I”), 2012 WL 2711032, at *1 (N.D. Cal. July 

6, 2012) (citing Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1184). Defendants argue “OCC files are kept confidential 

to protect the identity of the complainants, the witnesses, and the officers.” Defs.‟ Mot. at 2. 

Confidentiality (1) allows the Police Accountability Office to investigate complaints without fear 

that a party will take a portion of the investigation out of context or use “the department‟s”1

conclusions or theories for unintended purposes; (2) protects the privacy rights of the persons 

involved; and (3) allows the police department to take appropriate disciplinary action. Id.; see

Ceballo Decl. ¶¶ 3(5)-(6). Defense counsel declares Exhibits 5 and 6 “contain[] information 

 

1 Defendants do not specify whether “the department” refers to the Police Accountability Office, 

the San Francisco Police Department, or another unidentified department. 

Case 3:14-cv-00820-TSH Document 116 Filed 04/04/17 Page 2 of 3
3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

protected by a privacy right . . . , work product, or are confidential as a personnel file under 

California Penal Code section 832.7.” Ceballo Decl. ¶¶ 3(5)-(6). Defendants further assert that 

“[a] simple attorney mistake should not serve to harm the mission of the OCC.” Defs.‟ Mot. at 2. 

Compelling reasons exist to seal Exhibits 5 and 6. Defendants set forth specific reasons 

why confidentiality is necessary. Moreover, Exhibits 5 and 6 name parties not involved in this 

proceeding whose identities are not relevant to the disposition of this matter. The nonparties‟ 

privacy interests outweigh the public‟s interest in disclosure of their identities. See Hunt v. Cont’l 

Cas. Co., 2015 WL 5355398, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 14, 2015). These Exhibits also consist of 

OCC files documenting events unrelated to the instant case. While relevance is not a dispositive

factor, “the lack of relevance of the sensitive information . . . underscores the privacy interest in 

sealing such information.” Pryor v. City of Clearlake (“Pryor II”), 2012 WL 3276992, at *4 

(N.D. Cal. Aug. 9, 2012); see Pryor I, 2012 WL 2711032, at *1 (Where the information sought to 

be sealed is irrelevant, sensitive, and private, there is a “raise[d] . . . likelihood that it was filed . . . 

because of private spite or a desire to scandalize the public.”). For these reasons, the Court 

GRANTS Defendants‟ Motion as to Exhibits 5 and 6. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 4, 2017

______________________________________

MARIA-ELENA JAMES

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:14-cv-00820-TSH Document 116 Filed 04/04/17 Page 3 of 3