Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-04933/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-04933-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights

---

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

ABHIJIT PRASAD,

Plaintiff,

v.

GAIL SIMMONS, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-04933-BLF 

ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS TO

SEAL

[ECF 122, 125]

Before the Court are the parties’ administrative motions to file under seal portions of their 

briefing and exhibits in connection with Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF 84) and 

Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (ECF 101). ECF 122, 125. For the reasons stated 

below, the motions are GRANTED. 

I. LEGAL STANDARD

“Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records 

and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City & Cty. Of 

Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 

U.S. 589, 597 & n. 7 (1978)). Accordingly, when considering a sealing request, “a ‘strong 

presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.” Id. (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. 

Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). Parties seeking to seal judicial records relating to 

motions that are “more than tangentially related to the underlying cause of action” bear the burden 

of overcoming the presumption with “compelling reasons” that outweigh the general history of 

access and the public policies favoring disclosure. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., 809 F.3d 

1092, 1099 (9th Cir. 2016); Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178–79.

However, “while protecting the public’s interest in access to the courts, we must remain 

Case 5:15-cv-04933-BLF Document 130 Filed 02/08/19 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

mindful of the parties’ right to access those same courts upon terms which will not unduly harm 

their competitive interest.” Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., 727 F.3d 1214, 1228–29 (Fed. 

Cir. 2013). Records attached to motions that are “not related, or only tangentially related, to the 

merits of a case” therefore are not subject to the strong presumption of access. Ctr. for Auto 

Safety, 809 F.3d at 1099; see also Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (“[T]he public has less of a need 

for access to court records attached only to non-dispositive motions because those documents are 

often unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action.”). Parties moving 

to seal the documents attached to such motions must meet the lower “good cause” standard of 

Rule 26(c). Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (internal quotations and citations omitted). This 

standard requires a “particularized showing,” id., that “specific prejudice or harm will result” if the 

information is disclosed. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 

1210–11 (9th Cir. 2002); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). “Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by 

specific examples of articulated reasoning” will not suffice. Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 

966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992). A protective order sealing the documents during discovery 

may reflect the court’s previous determination that good cause exists to keep the documents 

sealed, see Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179–80, but a blanket protective order that allows the parties 

to designate confidential documents does not provide sufficient judicial scrutiny to determine 

whether each particular document should remain sealed. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(A) (“Reference 

to a stipulation or protective order that allows a party to designate certain documents as 

confidential is not sufficient to establish that a document, or portions thereof, are sealable.”).

In addition to making particularized showings of good cause, parties moving to seal 

documents must comply with the procedures established by Civ. L.R. 79-5. Pursuant to Civ. L.R. 

79-5(b), a sealing order is appropriate only upon a request that establishes the document is 

“sealable,” or “privileged or protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under 

the law.” “The request must be narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material, and 

must conform with Civil L.R. 79-5(d).” Civ. L.R. 79-5(b). In part, Civ. L.R. 79-5(d) requiresthe 

submitting party to attach a “proposed order that is narrowly tailored to seal only the sealable 

material” which “lists in table format each document or portion thereof that is sought to be 

Case 5:15-cv-04933-BLF Document 130 Filed 02/08/19 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

sealed,” Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(b), and an “unredacted version of the document” that indicates “by 

highlighting or other clear method, the portions of the document that have been omitted from the 

redacted version.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(d). “Within 4 days of the filing of the Administrative 

Motion to File Under Seal, the Designating Party must file a declaration as required by subsection 

79-5(d)(1)(A) establishing that all of the designated material is sealable.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).

II. DISCUSSION

The Court finds that the parties have articulated compelling reasons to seal the submitted 

documents. The Court’s rulings on the sealing requests are set forth below.

A. ECF 122 re Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment

ECF No. Document to be 

Sealed:

Result Reasoning

101-2

107-2

Exhibit 5D to the 

Weissburg Decl. –

Child Abuse Central 

Index records of 

Plaintiff

GRANTED as to 

redacted portions.

Contains Plaintiff’s personally 

identifying information.

Weissburg Decl. ISO Sealing ¶ 9, ECF 

122-1. Thus, compelling reasons exist 

to seal the document.

101-2

107-2

Exhibit 5F to the 

Weissburg Decl. –

Child Abuse Central 

Index records of 

Plaintiff

GRANTED as to 

entire document.

Contains minors’ personally identifying 

information, as well as allegations of 

sexual abuse of minors.

Weissburg Decl. ISO Sealing ¶ 9. 

Thus, compelling reasons exist to seal 

the document.

101-2

107-2

Exhibit 5G to the 

Weissburg Decl. –

CWS/CMS screenshot 

of Plaintiff

GRANTED as to 

redacted portions.

Contains Plaintiff’s personally 

identifying information.

Weissburg Decl. ISO Sealing ¶ 9. 

Thus, compelling reasons exist to seal 

the document.

101-2

102-1

107-2

108-1

Exhibit 10A to the 

Weissburg Decl. –

California DOJ 

response to

subpoena

GRANTED as to 

redacted portions.

Contains minors’ personally identifying 

information, as well as personally 

identifying information of the Plaintiff.

Weissburg Decl. ISO Sealing ¶ 9. 

Thus, compelling reasons exist to seal 

the document.

101-2

102-1

107-2

108-1

Exhibit 10B to the 

Weissburg Decl. –

Child Abuse or Severe 

Neglect Indexing Form

for Plaintiff;

GRANTED as to 

redacted portions.

Contains minors’ personally identifying 

information, as well as personally 

identifying information of the Plaintiff.

Weissburg Decl. ISO Sealing ¶ 9. 

Thus, compelling reasons exist to seal.

Case 5:15-cv-04933-BLF Document 130 Filed 02/08/19 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

ECF No. Document to be 

Sealed:

Result Reasoning

101-2

102-1

107-2

108-1

Exhibit 10C to the 

Weissburg Decl. –

Child Abuse Central 

Index Self Inquiry

Request for Plaintiff.

GRANTED. Contains Plaintiff’s personally 

identifying information.

Weissburg Decl. ISO Sealing ¶ 9. 

Thus, compelling reasons exist to seal 

the document.

B. ECF 125 re Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment

ECF No. Document to be 

Sealed:

Result Reasoning

94 Exhibit O to the 

Harrison Taylor 

Declaration

GRANTED as to 

redacted portions.

Contains minors’ personally identifying 

information.

Schmid Decl. ISO Sealing ¶ 2, ECF 

125-1. Thus, compelling reasons exist 

to seal the document.

95 Exhibit P to the Judy 

McKellar Declaration

GRANTED as to 

redacted portions.

Contains minors’ personally identifying 

information.

Schmid Decl. ¶ 2. Thus, compelling 

reasons exist to seal the document.

III. CONCLUSION

The motions to seal at ECF 122 and 125 are GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 8, 2019

______________________________________

BETH LABSON FREEMAN

United States District Judge

Case 5:15-cv-04933-BLF Document 130 Filed 02/08/19 Page 4 of 4