Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_08-cv-02432/USCOURTS-cand-4_08-cv-02432-3/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

1 Because nobody filed a motion to seal, the Court does not know who filed the documents for

sealing.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

OAKLAND DIVISION

SOPHIA WONG,

Plaintiff,

 v.

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner

of Social Security Administration, et al.,

Defendants. 

No. C 08-02432 SBA

ORDER

[Docket Entry of May 12, 2008]

INTRODUCTION

Before the Court are documents presented for filing under seal. For the reasons discussed

below, the request is denied without prejudice.

BACKGROUND

On May 12, 2008, Wong filed a Complaint. See Docket Nos. 1. Wong claims she is

mentally disabled and receives Social Security disability benefits. Compl. at 8:2-5. She also claims

her benefits go to a payee, whom she has named as a defendant, who did not pay her rent for 15

months, resulting in her eviction by her landlord, the San Francisco Housing Authority (the

“SFHA”), in Superior Court case CUD-08-625494. Id. at 8:11-20, 9:17, 11:24-25. As a result, she

alleges she is now homeless. Id. at 1:1, 10:3-6, 10:15-16. This same day, someone presented

documents for filing under seal in her matter.1

 See Docket Entry dated May 12, 2008.

LEGAL STANDARD

The legal standard in this area is provided by Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447

F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2006) and Civil Local Rule 79-5. In Kamakana, the Ninth Circuit held it is a

general rule that documents filed with a court must be open to public inspection, so the people and

the media can monitor court activity. Id. at 1178. Nonetheless, a narrow range of documents have

traditionally been exempt from this rule for public policy reasons, such as grand jury transcripts and

Case 4:08-cv-02432-SBA Document 11 Filed 05/20/08 Page 1 of 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

2

warrant materials in the midst of a pre-indictment investigation. Id. Documents outside this narrow

traditional range, however, must overcome a strong presumption favoring public access. Id.

Documents like dispositive motions and their exhibits may overcome this presumption if a party

demonstrates a compelling reason for sealing them. Id. at 1179. For documents related to discovery

and attached to a non-dispositive motion, however, a party need only show good cause exists to seal,

which is the same standard for filing discovery documents under seal, under Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 26(c). Id. at 1179-80.

In addition, Civil Local Rule 79-5(b) states:

(b) Request to File Entire Document Under Seal. Counsel seeking to file an

entire document under seal must: 

(1) File and serve an Administrative Motion to File Under Seal, in

conformance with Civil L.R. 7-11, accompanied by a declaration establishing that the

entire document is sealable;

(2) Lodge with the Clerk and serve a proposed order sealing the

document; 

(3) Lodge with the Clerk and serve the entire document, contained in

an 8 1⁄2- inch by 11-inch sealed envelope or other suitable sealed container, with a

cover sheet affixed to the envelope or container, setting out the information required

by Civil L.R. 3-4(a) and (b) and prominently displaying the notation: “DOCUMENT

SUBMITTED UNDER SEAL”; 

(4) Lodge with the Clerk for delivery to the Judge’s chambers a

second copy of the entire document, in an identical labeled envelope or container.

N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 79-5(b).

ANALYSIS

Here, the person filing the documents failed to provide any basis for sealing them under

either Rule 26’s good cause standard or the compelling standard discussed in Kamakana. Further,

the person made no effort to comply with Local Rule 79-5(b), including the requirement that they

///

Case 4:08-cv-02432-SBA Document 11 Filed 05/20/08 Page 2 of 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

3

provide a declaration as to why the documents proffered should be filed under seal. As such, the

documents will not be filed under seal.

CONCLUSION

The Court denies without prejudice the request to file the documents presented on May 12,

2008 for filing under seal. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

May 20, 2008 _________________________________

Saundra Brown Armstrong 

United States District Judge

Case 4:08-cv-02432-SBA Document 11 Filed 05/20/08 Page 3 of 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

4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WONG et al,

Plaintiff,

 v.

ASTRUE et al,

Defendant. /

Case Number: CV08-02432 SBA 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District

Court, Northern District of California.

That on May 20, 2008, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said

copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing said

envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle

located in the Clerk's office.

Sophia Wong

1230 Market Street, #731

San Francisco, CA 94102

Dated: May 20, 2008

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: LISA R CLARK, Deputy Clerk

Case 4:08-cv-02432-SBA Document 11 Filed 05/20/08 Page 4 of 4