Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-00470/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-00470-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

JOSHUA CHAVEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF HAYWARD, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 14-cv-00470-DMR 

ORDER RE ADMINISTRATIVE 

MOTION TO SEAL

Re: Dkt. No. 67

I. Background

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5(d), Plaintiff Joshua Chavez moves to file under seal 

portions of his brief in opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, as well as certain 

exhibits attached to the May 21, 2015 declaration of Adam Carlson (Docket No. 68). [Docket No. 

67.] Plaintiff moves to seal on the grounds that Defendants designated the material as confidential 

pursuant to the parties’ stipulated protective order. 

On June 5, 2015, in response to a court order, Defendants submitted a supporting 

declaration pursuant to Local Rule 79-5(e). [Docket No. 74 (Brick Decl., June 4, 2015).] In the 

declaration, defense counsel withdrew the confidential designation as to several documents. 

(Brick Decl. ¶ 4(b).) Due to a lack of clarity in Defendants’ submissions, the court subsequently 

issued two orders directing Defendants to specifically identify the documents and deposition page 

numbers they seek to seal. [Docket Nos. 78, 80.] In response, Defendants filed two statements in 

which they identified portions of the deposition transcripts of Defendant Miller and HPD Officer 

Jeffrey Snell, as well as excerpts from Plaintiff’s opposition brief. [Docket Nos. 79, 81.]

II. Discussion

The Ninth Circuit established standards governing requests to seal in Kamakana v. City & 

County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1180 (9th Cir. 2006). When a party seeks to seal judicial 

Case 4:14-cv-00470-DMR Document 83 Filed 06/19/15 Page 1 of 4
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

records filed in connection with dispositive motions, a “compelling reasons” standard applies. Id. 

at 1179. This standard derives from the common law right “to inspect and copy public records 

and documents, including judicial records and documents.” Id. at 1178 (citation and internal 

quotation marks omitted). To limit this common law right of access, a party seeking to seal 

judicial records must show that “compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings . . . 

outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure.” Id. at 1178-79 

(citations and internal quotation marks omitted). “[A] ‘good cause’ showing alone will not suffice 

to fulfill the ‘compelling reasons’ standard that a party must meet to rebut the presumption of 

access to dispositive pleadings and attachments.”1 Id. at 1180. As the court in Kamakana stated:

In general, “compelling reasons” sufficient to outweigh the public’s 

interest in disclosure and justify sealing court records exist when 

such “court files might have become a vehicle for improper 

purposes,” such as the use of records to gratify private spite, 

promote public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release 

trade secrets. . . . The mere fact that the production of records may 

lead to a litigant’s embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to 

further litigation will not, without more, compel the court to seal its 

records. 

Id. at 1179 (citing Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978))(citation and 

internal quotation marks omitted).

Here, Defendants ask the court to seal portions of the Miller and Snell deposition

transcripts (Exhibits F, G), as well as excerpts from Plaintiff’s opposition brief. [Docket No. 81.] 

Defendants argue that the court should seal the deposition testimony because it discusses private 

personnel records that are protected from disclosure pursuant to the California Penal Code and 

Evidence Code, as well as Miller’s right to privacy as guaranteed by article I, section 1 of the 

California Constitution. (Brick Decl. ¶ 5.)

California Penal Code section 832.7, along with California Evidence Code sections 1043-

1046, govern the confidentiality, discovery, and disclosure of police officers’ personnel records. 

These state statutes do not shield the material from disclosure, because in this section 1983 action, 

 

1

In contrast, a “‘good cause’ showing . . . will suffice to keep sealed records attached to nondispositive motions.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1180 (emphasis added) (citation omitted).

Case 4:14-cv-00470-DMR Document 83 Filed 06/19/15 Page 2 of 4
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

federal common law applies. See Fed. R. Evid. 501; see also Hunter v. City & Cnty. of San 

Francisco, No. 11-4911 JSC, 2013 WL 2319064, at *2 (N.D. Cal. May 28, 2013) (holding section 

832.7 does not apply in federal question case to support sealing a reference to prior excessive

force complaints against an individual defendant police officer; ordering portion of information 

sealed on other grounds (citing Garrett v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, 818 F.2d 1515, 1519 n.6 

(9th Cir. 1987))). Instead, Defendants must show “compelling reasons sufficient to outweigh the 

public’s interest in disclosure and justify sealing court records.” See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178. 

In his deposition, Miller testified about previous documented incidents in which he used 

force. The testimony includes the names of individuals on whom Miller used force and details 

about Miller’s involvement. Plaintiff does not argue that those individuals complained about 

Miller’s use of force or that any of the incidents involving his use of force were deemed 

unjustified. Instead, it appears that Plaintiff submitted Miller’s testimony to show that HPD was 

aware that Miller used force on several occasions but did not take responsive corrective action. 

Given the limited purpose of the testimony, the court finds that Miller’s privacy interest in his 

testimony about these incidents outweighs the public’s interest in disclosure and grants the motion 

to seal as to his designated deposition testimony. See, e.g., Pryor v. City of Clearlake, No. C 11-

0954 CW, 2012 WL 3276992, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 9, 2012) (finding police officer’s privacy 

interest outweighed interest in disclosure in unsubstantiated citizen complaints and ordering 

complaints sealed).

The court reaches a different conclusion regarding the deposition testimony of Officer 

Snell. Snell’s testimony relates to his Internal Affairs investigation into whether policy violations

occurred during the incident at issue in this case. Plaintiff relies on this testimony in support of his 

Monell ratification claim. The testimony itself is not particularly sensitive. Defendants’ privacy 

interest is insufficient to overcome the public’s interest in understanding the basis for Plaintiff’s 

Monell claim. Accordingly, the court declines to seal the designated portions of Snell’s deposition 

testimony. 

The portions of Plaintiff’s opposition brief which refer to Miller’s confidential deposition 

testimony shall also be filed under seal: 

Case 4:14-cv-00470-DMR Document 83 Filed 06/19/15 Page 3 of 4
4

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

1. page i, line 27

2. page 10, line 24 through page 11, line 6

3. page 11, lines 14-16

III. Conclusion

Within seven days of the date of this order, Plaintiff shall (1) file a redacted version of his 

opposition brief in conformance with this order, and (2) file unredacted copies of all documents he

originally filed conditionally under seal, with the exception of Miller’s confidential deposition 

testimony.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 19, 2015

______________________________________

Donna M. Ryu

United States Magistrate Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Donna M. Ryu

Case 4:14-cv-00470-DMR Document 83 Filed 06/19/15 Page 4 of 4