Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01703/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01703-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983bv Bivens Non-Prisoner

---

1

18-cv-1703-BTM-AGS

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KAROND CHEATUM, an 

individual,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF SAN DIEGO, a 

municipality, SAN DIEGO POLICE 

DEPARTMENT, and OFFICER 

ESTRADA (#6871), an individual; 

and DOES 1-25, inclusive,

Defendants.

Case No.: 18-cv-1703-BTM-AGS

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 

DENYING IN PART 

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO SEAL

[ECF No. 11]

Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Seal documents contained in its 

Motion to Dismiss the Complaint. (See ECF No. 10-5). The Complaint alleges 

that Defendant officers deployed excessive force, ordering a K-9 to attack 

Plaintiff after he had already surrendered to arrest. (See ECF No. 1). 

Defendants request leave to file the following documents under seal: 

• Exhibit 1: Body worn camera footage of Officer Carlos Estrada;

• Exhibit 2: Transcript of Officer Estrada’s body worn camera footage;

• Exhibit 3: Recording of Sgt. Scott Holslag’s interview of Mr. 

Case 3:18-cv-01703-BTM-AGS Document 16 Filed 08/14/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

18-cv-1703-BTM-AGS

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

Cheatum; and

• Exhibit 4: Transcript of Sgt. Holslag’s interview.

Defendants state that the above exhibits will likely be subject to a protective 

order as the litigation progresses because they contain confidential information, 

including, “Defendants’ tactics and the police service dog’s bite command, 

information regarding the plaintiff’s mental status on the date of the incident, the 

officers’ identities and their badge numbers.” (ECF No. 11-1 at 3). Defendants 

add that the exhibits contain private and personal information regarding Plaintiff, 

as well as privileged official information that was not open or officially disclosed 

to the public prior to the assertion of privilege. (Id.) 

“Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy 

public records and documents, including judicial records and documents.’ ” 

Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) 

(quoting Nixon v. Warner Communs., Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 n.7 (1978)). The 

party moving to seal “bears the burden of overcoming this strong presumption [of 

access] by meeting the compelling reasons standard.” Id. at 1178 (citing Foltz v. 

State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). The 

standard requires the moving party to “articulate compelling reasons supported 

by specific factual findings . . . that outweigh the general history of access and 

the public policies favoring disclosure . . . .” Id. at 1179 (internal citations and 

quotation marks omitted). The district court must then “weigh relevant factors, 

base its decision on a compelling reason, and articulate the factual basis for its 

ruling, without relying on hypothesis or conjecture.” Pintos v. Pacific Creditors 

Ass'n, 605 F.3d 665, 679 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Hagestad v. Tragesser, 49 F.3d 

1430, 1434 (9th Cir. 1995)). “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 

Case 3:18-cv-01703-BTM-AGS Document 16 Filed 08/14/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

18-cv-1703-BTM-AGS

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

libelous statements, or release trade secrets.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179. If 

public access to the documents to be sealed would “promot[e] the public’s 

understanding ... of [a] significant public event[ ],” that fact weighs against sealing 

the judicial record. Valley Broad. Co. v. U.S. Dist. Court for Dist. of Nevada, 798 

F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1986).

The Court grants Defendants leave to seal information concerning the dog 

bite command, because public knowledge of such a command could jeopardize 

security. The Court DENIES the rest of the Motion. Although Plaintiff does not 

object to sealing the above exhibits, Plaintiff does not affirmatively request their 

sealing to preserve his privacy. Moreover, the Court is concerned that such 

records are of significance to the public, who has an interest in the activity of law 

enforcement and its use of force. The Motion does not address the public 

interest, nor does it articulate a compelling reason that would outweigh the 

public’s interest in disclosure of the body cameras, videos, or transcripts 

described. Accordingly, the Motion to Seal is denied as to all but the dog bite 

command itself. (ECF No. 11). Defendants shall publically file redacted exhibits

in accordance with this order. The unredacted exhibits shall be filed under seal. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 26, 2019

Case 3:18-cv-01703-BTM-AGS Document 16 Filed 08/14/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3