Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_13-cv-00695/USCOURTS-cand-5_13-cv-00695-12/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

SAN JOSE DIVISION

MARY LOU GONZALES,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF SAN JOSE, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 13-cv-00695-BLF 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART, 

DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S 

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE 

UNDER SEAL; INSTRUCTIONS TO 

PLAINTIFF

[Re: ECF 144]

Plaintiff Mary Lou Gonzales seeks to seal four exhibits filed in support of her concurrently 

filed Motion for Partial Summary Judgment of Claims. See Pl.’s Admin. Mot., ECF 144. For the 

reasons stated herein, Plaintiff’s request is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

I. LEGAL STANDARD

“Unless a particular court record is one ‘traditionally kept secret,’” a “strong presumption 

in favor of access” to judicial records “is the starting point.” Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of 

Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 

331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). A party seeking to seal judicial records relating to a 

dispositive motion therefore bears the burden of overcoming this presumption by articulating 

“compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the general history of 

access and the public policies favoring disclosure.” Id. at 1178-79. This standard is invoked 

“even if the dispositive motion, or its attachments, were previously filed under seal or protective 

order.” Id. at 1179 (citing Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1136). Compelling reasons for sealing court files 

generally 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.” Id. (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 

Case 5:13-cv-00695-BLF Document 150 Filed 03/12/15 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

(1978)). However, “[t]he 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.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179.

Furthermore, in this District, parties seeking to seal judicial records must also follow Civil 

L.R. 79-5, which requires, inter alia, that a sealing request be “narrowly tailored to seek sealing 

only of sealable material.” Civil L.R. 79-5(b). Where the submitting party seeks to file under seal 

a document designated confidential by another party (the “designating party”), the burden of 

articulating compelling reasons for sealing is placed on the designating party. Id. 79-5(e). 

II. ANALYSIS

Plaintiff seeks to seal four exhibits in support of her Motion for Partial Summary 

Judgment: Exhibit A to the Declaration of Marylou Gonzales; Exhibit J to the Declaration of 

Steven M. Berki; as well as Exhibits C and D attached to Plaintiff’s Request for Judicial Notice. 

Pl.’s Admin. Mot. 2-3. Reserving judgment on whether Exhibits C and D are properly subject to 

judicial notice, this Court determines whether these four documents are sealable under the 

prevailing standard and applicable rules.

A. Exhibit A

Exhibit A is Plaintiff’s California driver’s license, which she seeks to seal because it 

“contains [her] personal identifying information, including her California Driver’s License 

number, name, address, date of birth, signature, height, and weight.” Pl.’s Admin. Mot. 2. While 

the Court understands Plaintiff’s concern for privacy, her request to file her driver’s license 

entirely under seal is not narrowly tailored, particularly where her appearance is a central issue in 

the case, and her height is stated without redaction in her Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. 

See Pl.’s Mot. for Summary Judgment 12, ECF 146. Plaintiff’s sealing request is therefore 

GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART with respect to Exhibit A. Out of an abundance of 

caution, the Court will permit Plaintiff to redact her driver’s license number, address, date of birth, 

and signature, for which the Court finds compelling reasons to seal. Plaintiff shall file this 

Case 5:13-cv-00695-BLF Document 150 Filed 03/12/15 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

redacted version of Exhibit A into the record by no later than March 19, 2015.1

B. Exhibits J

Exhibit J to the Berki Declaration is described as “part of the San Jose Police Department’s 

‘Metro Unit Guidelines,’” that were “produced as part of Defendant City of San Jose’s Fifth 

Supplemental Response to Plaintiff’s First Request for Production.” Pl.’s Admin. Mot. 2. The 

City of San Jose “designated these documents ‘Confidential’ before producing them to Plaintiff, 

pursuant to a Protective Order between the parties.” Id. Because Defendant City of San Jose is 

the designating party, it bears the burden of demonstrating compelling reasons in support of 

sealing. Civ. L.R. 79-5(e). Plaintiff filed her sealing request on February 26, 2015 and, to date, 

Defendant City of San Jose has not submitted any declaration in support of sealing. Furthermore, 

the Court notes that although Exhibit J is stamped “Confidential,” the City of San Jose’s responses 

to Plaintiff’s Request for Production are not so labeled. Plaintiff’s request to seal both documents, 

combined into a single exhibit, in their entirety is not narrowly tailored.

Plaintiff’s sealing request is therefore DENIED as to Exhibit J. Plaintiff shall file the 

unredacted version of Exhibit J into the public record no earlier than 4 days, and no later than 

10 days, from the date of this order. Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(2). 

C. Exhibits C and D

Exhibits C and D to Plaintiff’s Request for Judicial Notice are documents produced by the 

Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s Department, which is not a party to this case. Exhibit C, a booking 

report for Mary Gonzales, is labeled “FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY. NOT TO BE 

PHOTOCOPIED NOR IS ANY INFORMATION HEREIN TO BE GIVEN TO 

UNAUTHORIZED AGENCIES OR PERSONS.” Exhibit D, various booking mugshots for Mary 

Gonzales, is labeled “Confidential, Do Not Duplicate. Both documents were produced pursuant to 

Plaintiff’s subpoena, and she avers that the documents are sealable because the Santa Cruz County 

Sheriff’s Department designated them as confidential. Pl.’s Admin. Mot. 2-3. It is unclear 

whether the documents were produced pursuant to any protective order or other directive that 

 

1

Plaintiff is encouraged to file a version of this exhibit in color.

Case 5:13-cv-00695-BLF Document 150 Filed 03/12/15 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

Plaintiff may not file the documents publicly. As with Defendant City of San Jose, the Santa Cruz 

County Sheriff’s Department has not submitted a declaration in support of sealing within the 

timeframe set forth in Civil Local Rule 79-5(e).

Plaintiff’s sealing request is accordingly DENIED with respect to Exhibits C and D. Out 

of an abundance of caution and respect for the confidentiality of a third party, Plaintiff shall serve 

a copy of this order on the Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s Department by March 16, 2015. If no 

declaration setting forth compelling reasons in support of sealing Exhibits C and D is submitted to 

this Court by March 23, 2015, Plaintiff shall file those exhibits into the public record on March 

24, 2015.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 12, 2015

______________________________________

BETH LABSON FREEMAN

United States District Judge

Case 5:13-cv-00695-BLF Document 150 Filed 03/12/15 Page 4 of 4