Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-01473/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-01473-3/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SACRAMENTO DIVISION

NAKIA V. PORTER, an individual on her 

own behalf and on behalf of her minor 

children, L.P. and A.P; JOE BERRY 

POWELL, JR., an individual; and CLIFTON 

POWELL, on behalf of his minor child, O.P., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

COUNTY OF SOLANO; SOLANO 

COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE; SHERIFF 

THOMAS A. FERRARA, in his official 

capacity as Sheriff of Solano County; 

DEPUTY DALTON MCCAMPBELL, an 

individual; DEPUTY LISA MCDOWELL, an 

individual; SERGEANT ROY STOCKTON, 

an individual; DEPUTY CONNOR 

HAMILTON, an individual; DEPUTY CHRIS 

CARTER, an individual; CITY OF DIXON; 

DIXON POLICE DEPARTMENT; DIXON 

POLICE CHIEF ROBERT THOMPSON, in 

his official capacity as Dixon Chief of Police; 

OFFICER GABRIEL HOLLINGSHEAD, an 

individual, OFFICER AARON WILLIAMS, 

an individual, and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, 

Defendants. 

 Case No. 2:21-CV-01473-KJM-JDP 

ORDER 

Hon. Kimberly J. Mueller 

United States District Judge 

 

Case 2:21-cv-01473-KJM-JDP Document 44 Filed 06/30/22 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

The plaintiffs’ request to seal the declarations of Nakia V. Porter, Clifton Powell, and Yasin M. 

Almadani, which were filed in support of an application to continue representing their minor children in 

this action. See Notice of Request to Seal, ECF No. 41. The defendants have not opposed the request. 

The court denies the request. 

“[T]he courts of this country recognize a general right to inspect and copy public records and 

documents, including judicial records and documents.” Nixon v. Warner Communications, 435 U.S. 589, 

597 (1978). And there is a “strong presumption in favor of access” to the record unless an exception 

applies. Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003). To seal documents 

filed in connection with a dispositive motion, parties must show there are “compelling reasons” for doing 

so. Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 180 (9th Cir. 2006)). “A ‘good cause’ 

showing under Rule 26(c) will suffice to keep sealed records attached to non-dispositive motions.” Id. 

Here plaintiffs seek to seal the affidavits in support of their request that “Ms. Porter and Mr. 

Powell seek to be appointed as guardian’s [sic] ad litem for their respective children.” Application at 1, 

ECF No. 40. Thus, the good cause standard applies. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 180; J.B. v. Banning 

Unified Sch. Dist., No. 18-2134, 2018 WL 6164312, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 18, 2018) (applying good cause 

standard request to seal an application for appointment of guardian ad litem). While the information in 

the declarations by Ms. Porter and Mr. Powell that can be used to identify the minor plaintiffs is sensitive, 

it does not present good cause for sealing the declarations in their entirety. Rather, the plaintiffs shall file 

their declarations with redactions of the minors’ names, birthdates, and addresses to protect the privacy 

of the minor plaintiffs. See Local Rule 140. The court also finds there is no good cause to seal the 

declaration of counsel Almadani, which makes the disclosures required under this court’s Local Rule 

202(c). 

The court denies the request to seal (ECF No. 41). 

SO ORDERED. 

DATED: June 30, 2022. 

Case 2:21-cv-01473-KJM-JDP Document 44 Filed 06/30/22 Page 2 of 2