Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00142/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00142-11/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

DOMINIC HANNA, through and by 

KATHY HENDERSON, Guardian Ad litem,

Plaintiff,

v.

COUNTY OF FRESNO, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:14-cv-00142-LJO-SKO

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S 

REQUEST TO SEAL A DOCUMENT

(Docket No. 75)

I. INTRODUCTION

On August 28, 2015, Plaintiff Dominic Hanna ("Plaintiff"), by and through his Guardian 

Ad Litem, Kathy Henderson filed a complaint against the County of Fresno, Margaret Mims, 

Edward Moreno, M.D., Pratap Narayen, M.D., Karen Nunez, Rick Hill, Marilynn Weldon, Tricia 

Nekola, Blanca Chavez, and Thayin Vu (collectively, "Defendants"). (Doc. 1.) On August 28, 

2015, Plaintiff filed a request to file under seal a declaration of his counsel to support his motion 

for appointment of counsel pursuant to General Order 510. Plaintiff's request to seal his counsel's 

declaration in support of his request for appointment of counsel is GRANTED.

II. DISCUSSION

A motion to seal documents implicates the "general right to inspect and copy public 

records and documents, including judicial records and documents." Nixon v. Warner Comm'cs, 

Case 1:14-cv-00142-LJO-SKO Document 79 Filed 09/08/15 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

2

Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978) (footnote omitted). In the Ninth Circuit, there is a strong 

presumption in favor of access to court records. See Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 

331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003) (stipulated order without more insufficient basis to seal court 

records). The right to access is not absolute and can be overridden where there are sufficiently 

compelling reasons. Id. 

The party seeking to seal a document related to a non-dispositive motion must meet the 

"good cause" standard set forth by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) that applies to protective 

orders. Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass'n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010); see also Kamakana v. 

City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1180 (9th Cir. 2006) (noting differing treatment of 

judicial records attached to dispositive motions versus those attached to nondispositive motions).1 

In the Rule 26(c) context, "[a] party asserting good cause bears the burden, for each particular 

document it seeks to protect, of showing that specific prejudice or harm will result if no protective 

order is granted." Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1130. "Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by 

specific examples or articulated reasoning, do not satisfy the Rule 26(c) test." Beckman Indus., 

Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992) (internal quotation marks omitted). "If a 

court finds particularized harm will result from disclosure of information to the public, then it 

balances the public and private interests to decide whether a protective order is necessary." 

Phillips v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1211 (9th Cir. 2002). 

Here, Plaintiff seeks to seal the declaration of his counsel in support of his request for 

appointment of counsel. (Doc. 5.) Plaintiff contends the information contained in his counsel's 

declaration is attorney work-product, which is privileged. Having reviewed the 8-page 

declaration, the Court finds it contains privileged attorney work-product information that is 

entitled to protection from disclosure. See generally Pac. Fisheries Inc. v. United States, 539 F.3d 

1143, 1148 (9th Cir.2008) (explaining that the attorney work-product privilege "shields both 

opinion and factual work product from discovery.") As such, Plaintiff's request to seal this 

document is granted.

 

1

Plaintiff's sealing request pertains to a request for the appointment of counsel, which is a nondispositive motion. As 

such, the "good cause" standard applies.

Case 1:14-cv-00142-LJO-SKO Document 79 Filed 09/08/15 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

3

III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff's request to seal the declaration of his counsel in support of his request for 

appointment of counsel is GRANTED; and

2. Plaintiff is directed to submit the documents to be sealed to the Clerk of the Court 

as set forth in Rule 141(e)(2)(i) of the Local Rules of the United States District 

Court, Eastern District of California.2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 7, 2015 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

2

This can be accomplished by emailing the documents to ApprovedSealed@caed.uscourts.gov. A link to the Clerk's 

email address for sealed documents is contained on the Court's web site at the following location:

http://www.caed.uscourts.gov/caed/staticother/page_1652.htm.

Case 1:14-cv-00142-LJO-SKO Document 79 Filed 09/08/15 Page 3 of 3