Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00905/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00905-2/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

PAMELA MOTLEY, et al. 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

THE CITY OF FRESNO, CALIFORNIA, 

et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 1:15-CV-00905-DAD-BAM 

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ 

REQUEST TO SEAL DOCUMENTS 

SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF MOTION 

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 

(Doc. No. 41) 

 

 This matter is before the court on defendants’ March 3, 2016 request to seal documents 

submitted in support of their motion for summary judgment. (Doc. No. 41.) The motion was filed 

ex parte and did not reflect plaintiff’s position with respect to the request. Upon determining that 

plaintiffs opposed the request to seal, on March 7, 2016, the court issued a minute order directing 

plaintiffs to file any opposition to defendants’ request by March 9, 2016. (Doc. No. 44.) 

Plaintiffs filed their opposition on March 9, 2016. (Doc. No. 46.) For the following reasons, the 

court DENIES defendants’ request. 

I. Introduction 

Defendants seek to seal two exhibits to be filed in support of their March 3, 2016 motion 

for summary judgment. The first document—marked Exhibit FF—is a copy of Procedure 320 

from the Fresno Police Department Procedures Manual (“Procedure 320”). The document 

Case 1:15-cv-00905-DAD-BAM Document 47 Filed 03/17/16 Page 1 of 5
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

generally details how officers are to respond to situations involving domestic violence. The 

second document—marked Exhibit GG—is a copy of Policy 320 of the Fresno Police Department 

(“Policy 320”), which generally discusses the department’s domestic violence policy. All law 

enforcement agencies in California are required to adopt such policies, as mandated by California 

Penal Code § 13701(a). In support of their request to seal, defendants argue that publication of 

these documents will impede police operations, place officers and members of the public in 

harm’s way and will reveal “police procedural trade secrets.” (Doc. No. 41 at 1.) 

II. Legal Standards 

The Local Rules of the Eastern District of California provide that “[d]ocuments may be 

sealed only by written order of the Court.” L.R. 141(a). A request to seal “shall set forth the 

statutory or other authority for sealing, the requested duration, the identity, by name or category, 

of persons to be permitted access to the documents, and all other relevant information.” Id. 

141(b). 

There is strong presumption in favor of public access to court records. See Phillips v. Gen 

Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210 (9th Cir. 2002). However, “access to judicial records is not 

absolute.” Kamakana v. City & Cnty. Of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). The 

Ninth Circuit has distinguished between the public’s interest in accessing court records filed in 

connection with nondispositive and dispositive motions. See In re Midland Nat’l Life Ins. Co., 

686 F.3d 1115, 1119 (9th Cir. 2012); Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1172; Foltz v. State Farm Mut. 

Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135-36 (9th Cir. 2003); Phillips, 307 F.3d at 1213. To seal 

documents filed in connection with a dispositive motion, as defendants seek to do here, parties 

must show there are “compelling reasons” for doing so. Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1180, 1182 

(“[T]he proponent of sealing bears the burden with respect to sealing.”) To demonstrate 

compelling reasons, a party is “required to present articulable facts identifying the interests 

favoring continued secrecy and to show that these specific interests [overcome] the presumption 

of access by outweighing the public interest in understanding the judicial process.” Id. at 1181 

(internal citations, quotation marks, and emphasis omitted). “When sealing documents attached 

to a dispositive pleading, a district court must base its decision on a compelling reason and 

Case 1:15-cv-00905-DAD-BAM Document 47 Filed 03/17/16 Page 2 of 5
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

articulate the factual basis for its ruling, without relying on hypothesis or conjecture.” Id. at 1182 

(internal citation, quotation marks, and emphasis omitted). See also Pintos v. Pac. Creditors 

Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 679 (9th Cir. 2010), cert. denied sub nom. Experian Info. Solutions, Inc. v. 

Pintos, 562 U.S. 1134 (2011) (vacating and remanding district court’s denial of a sealing request 

where the court applied merely good cause standard in addressing documents filed in connection 

with summary judgment motions). “In general, ‘compelling reasons’ sufficient to outweigh the 

public’s interest in disclosure and justify sealing court records exist when such ‘court files might 

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.” Kamakana, 447 

F.3d at 1179 (quoting Nixon v. Warner Communs., Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 589 (1978)). “The 

‘compelling reasons’ standard is invoked even if the dispositive motion, or its attachments, were 

previously filed under seal or protective order.” Id. 

III. Analysis 

Here, defendants argue that publication of the two exhibits in question will endanger 

victims, witnesses, and officers and impede criminal investigations by exposing the methods and 

procedures employed by Fresno police officers who respond to domestic violence calls. 

Defendants also label these documents as “police procedural trade secrets.” They contend that 

the potential for injury and impediment, combined with the secretive nature of the documents, 

constitutes a compelling reason that “sufficient[ly] outweigh[s] the public’s interest in disclosure . 

. . .” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179-1180. 

First, the court finds that defendants’ request to seal Policy 320 is without merit. 

Defendants have not made the required showing to justify sealing of that document while using it 

in support of their motion for summary judgment. Moreover, § 320.6 of the policy states that “[a] 

copy of this domestic violence policy will be provided to members of the public upon request.” 

Also, California Penal Code § 13701(a) and (c) state that “[e]very law enforcement agency in this 

state shall develop, adopt, and implement written policies and standards for officers’ responses to 

domestic violence calls” and that “these existing local policies and those developed shall be in 

writing and shall be available to the public upon request . . . .” Thus, the language of Policy 

Case 1:15-cv-00905-DAD-BAM Document 47 Filed 03/17/16 Page 3 of 5
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

320—as well as the language of the statute mandating the development of the policy—clearly 

articulates that it is a public document. Accordingly, the court will deny defendants’ request to 

seal this document. 

Second, with regard to Procedure 320, the court finds that defendants have failed to state 

the existence of a “particularized harm” that would result from the this document appearing in the 

public record of this action. Defendants’ generalized concerns that publication of Procedure 320 

will somehow allow criminals to evade law enforcement and inflict harm on the public do not 

constitute “specific factual findings” as required by binding Ninth Circuit authority. Kamakana, 

447 F.3d at 1178-79. See also Lawman v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, No. 15-cv-01202, 2016 

U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14507, at *6-7 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 5, 2015) (denying motion to seal portions of 

deposition testimony concerning police department training scenarios, submitted in connection 

with a summary judgment motion and where the proffering party argued that publication would 

thwart the integrity of testing and training of police recruits and officers, because the proffering 

party failed to “offer [any] specifics about how disclosure of [such] information would impact the 

‘integrity’ of police officer testing and training.”). 

Here, defendants present no details showing how publication of the document in question 

will undermine law enforcement techniques or safety or hinder law enforcement’s ability to 

protect witnesses, victims, and the general public. Because defendants fail to provide any specific 

facts, they have not satisfied the “compelling reasons” standard. That is the showing the Ninth 

Circuit has required to be made in requesting sealing in the context of documents submitted in 

connection with dispositive motions, as is the case here. Accordingly, the court must also deny 

defendants’ request to seal Procedure 320. 

///// 

///// 

///// 

///// 

///// 

///// 

Case 1:15-cv-00905-DAD-BAM Document 47 Filed 03/17/16 Page 4 of 5
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 

5

IV. Conclusion 

For all of the reasons set forth above, defendants’ request to seal (Doc. No. 41) is 

DENIED without prejudice.1

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: March 17, 2016 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

 

1

 In light of the governing standards and the deficiencies with the request pending before the 

court, it may be that defendants cannot make the necessary showing with respect to either of the 

documents. In denying the request without prejudice, the court is merely indicating that 

defendants are not precluded from attempting to do so if their counsel believes the required 

showing can be made. 

Case 1:15-cv-00905-DAD-BAM Document 47 Filed 03/17/16 Page 5 of 5