Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-00320/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-00320-8/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 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

ERIKA GREGORY, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

CITY OF VALLEJO, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:13-cv-00320-KJM-KJN 

ORDER 

 This matter is before the court on defendant Chase Calhoun’s unopposed motion to 

seal trial transcript of Sarah Elmossalamy’s testimony. (ECF No. 117.) “In light of the privacy 

interests and California statutes governing protection of police officers’ personnel records, 

Defendants request that the court seal the trial transcript of Sarah Elmossalamy.” (Id. at 3.) As 

explained below, the court DENIES the motion. 

DISCUSSION 

 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). 

Case 2:13-cv-00320-KJM-KJN Document 119 Filed 07/28/15 Page 1 of 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 

2

 There is a strong presumption in favor of public access to court records. See

Phillips v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210 (9th Cir. 2002). More specifically in the 

context of a trial, “there is a strong presumption that material introduced into evidence at trial 

should be made reasonably accessible in a manner suitable for copying and broader 

dissemination.” United States v. Criden, 648 F.2d 814, 823 (3d Cir. 1981). 

 In addition, with respect to materials used at trial, “it is well established that the 

release of information in open court ‘is a publication of that information and, if no effort is made 

to limit its disclosure, operates as a waiver of any rights a party had to restrict its future use.’” 

Littlejohn v. Bic Corp., 851 F.2d 673, 680 (3d Cir. 1988) (quoting Nat’l Polymer Products, Inc. v. 

Borg-Warner Corp., 641 F.2d 418, 421 (6th Cir. 1981)); Biovail Labs., Inc. v. Anchen Pharm., 

Inc., 463 F. Supp. 2d 1073, 1081 (C.D. Cal. 2006). 

 Here, defendant Calhoun’s request to seal is denied for two independent reasons. 

First, Calhoun has not met his burden of overcoming the strong presumption of public access, 

particularly in the trial context. No evidence in the record shows disclosure will work clearly 

defined injury to Calhoun, and defendant’s referencing only potential injury lacks specificity. 

Broad allegations of harm cannot overcome the strong presumption in favor of public access. See

Mosaid Technologies Inc. v. LSI Corp., 878 F. Supp. 2d 503, 507–08 (D. Del. 2012). 

 Moreover, defendant has waived any rights he might have had to restrict the use of 

Sarah Elmossalamy’s testimony. More colloquially, that horse long ago left the barn. During 

trial, defendant’s counsel herself cross-examined Sarah Elmossalamy vigorously and elicited the 

information she now attempts to screen from public view. At no time did she move to strike or 

otherwise restrict the use of the testimony covered by her motion. 

 Defendant’s request is DENIED. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATE: July 27, 2015. 

Case 2:13-cv-00320-KJM-KJN Document 119 Filed 07/28/15 Page 2 of 2