Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02534/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02534-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner 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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RAMON LADALE SINEGAL, CDCR

# J-95722,

Plaintiff,

v.

E. DUARTE, et al.,

Defendants. 

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 11CV2534-BEN(JMA)

ORDER FOR FURTHER

BRIEFING IN SUPPORT OF

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO FILE

DEFENDANTS’ DOCUMENTS

UNDER SEAL

Plaintiff Ramon Ladale Sinegal, who is proceeding pro se and in

forma pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 28 U.S.C. §

1915(a), has filed a motion to file under seal exhibits filed in support of

Plaintiff’s Supplemental Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Summary

Judgment. [Doc. No. 81]. The documents at issue are six pages that were

designated by Defendants during discovery as confidential.

Historically, courts have recognized a "general right to inspect and

copy public records and documents, including judicial records and

documents." Nixon v. Warner Communs., Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7, 98

S. Ct. 1306, 55 L. Ed. 2d 570 (1978). This right is justified by the interest of

citizens in "keeping a watchful eye on the workings of public agencies." Id.

Case 3:11-cv-02534-BEN-JMA Document 82 Filed 04/18/14 Page 1 of 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

at 598. Nonetheless, access to judicial records is not absolute. Unless a

particular court record is one "traditionally kept secret," such as a grand

jury transcript or warrant materials in the midst of a pre-indictment

investigation, a "strong presumption in favor of access" is the starting point.

Kamakana v. City & Cnty of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006);

Foltz v. State Farm Mutual Auto Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir.

2003). A party seeking to seal a judicial record then bears the burden of

overcoming this strong presumption by meeting the "compelling reasons"

standard. Id. That is, the party must "articulate[] compelling reasons

supported by specific factual findings," that outweigh the general history of

access and the public policies favoring disclosure, such as the "'public

interest in understanding the judicial process.'" Kamakana, 447 F.3d at

1178 (citations omitted). In turn, the court must "conscientiously balance[]

the competing interests" of the public and the party who seeks to keep

certain judicial records secret. Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1135. After considering

these interests, if the court decides to seal certain judicial records, it must

"base its decision on a compelling reason and articulate the factual basis

for its ruling, without relying on hypothesis or conjecture." Kamakana, 447

F.3d at 1178 (citations omitted). 

Plaintiff’s motion to seal does not articulate compelling reasons

supported by specific factual findings to seal the documents. Defendants,

however, presumably have an interest in maintaining the confidentiality of

the documents that are the subject of Plaintiff’s motion to seal, as they

designated the documents as confidential and subject to the protective

order during discovery. If Defendants seek to have the documents

submitted by Plaintiff filed under seal, by no later than April 28, 2014,

Defendants shall provide further briefing in support of Plaintiff’s motion to

/ / 

2

Case 3:11-cv-02534-BEN-JMA Document 82 Filed 04/18/14 Page 2 of 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

seal, articulating compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings

to seal the documents.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 18, 2014

Jan M. Adler

U.S. Magistrate Judge

3

Case 3:11-cv-02534-BEN-JMA Document 82 Filed 04/18/14 Page 3 of 3