Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01113/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01113-24/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

08cv1113

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FRESNO DIVISION

SERGIO ALEJANDRO GAMEZ,

CDCR #C-47759

Plaintiff,

v.

F. GONZALES et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 08cv1113-L(PCL)

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT

PREJUDICE DEFENDANTS’ EX

PARTE MOTION FOR ORDER TO

FILE CONFIDENTIAL

DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL

On May 23, 2011 Defendants in this civil rights action by a state prisoner proceeding pro

se, filed an Ex Parte Motion for Order to File Confidential Documents Under Seal, seeking to

seal in excess of 200 pages of exhibits and Declaration of Josh Tyree in Support of Defendants’

Motion for Summary Judgment and for Defendants’ Motion for Order to File Confidential

Documents Under Seal for in Camera Review as well as in excess of 200 pages of exhibits. One

of the issues in this case is whether Defendants had sufficient reliable evidence to validate

Plaintiff as associated with a gang and continue to keep him in segregation for more than six

years. Defendants argue that their motion should be granted in order to protect the identity of

confidential informants. While Defendants’ premise is valid in that “[d]ue process does not

require that an informant’s identity be revealed to an inmate,” Zimmerlee v. Keeney, 831 F.2d

183, 186 (9th Cir. 1987), and the information about the informants’ identity could be used for the

Case 1:08-cv-01113-EPG Document 82 Filed 05/27/11 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 08cv1113

improper purpose or harming them, see Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 679 n.6

(9th Cir. 2010), Defendants have failed to make the appropriate showing why the entirety of

Sergeant Tyree’s declaration and all of over 200 pages of exhibits must be sealed.

A party requesting to seal judicial records attached to a dispositive motion “must show

that ‘compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings’” outweigh the presumption of

access to judicial records, which favors disclosure. Pintos, 605 F.3d at 678, quoting Kamakana

v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178-79 (9th Cir. 2006); see also Kamakana,

447 F.3d at 1179-80. “[B]road allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples or

articulated reasoning” are insufficient. Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476

(9th Cir. 1992). 

Sergeant Tyree’s declaration consists largely of materials which are already disclosed in

the documents Defendants filed and did not request to seal. (Decl. of Josh Tyree in Support of

Defs’ Mot. for Summ. J. and for Defs’ Mot. for Order to File Confidential Documents Under

Seal for in Camera Review (“Tyree Seal Decl.”) at 1-4.) The balance of the declaration seeks to

provide, in very general terms, a factual basis for sealing the exhibits and does not reveal any

information which could serve to identify confidential informants. (Id. at 4-6.) To the extent

that Defendants requested to file under seal Sergeant Tyree’s declaration their request is

DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to filing a new motion to seal, provided they show specific

compelling reasons why each portion of the declaration should be sealed.

Defendants also requested to seal more than 200 pages of exhibits in support of their

summary judgment motion. Upon review of the exhibits, it is apparent that the bulk of the

material does not reference confidential informant names or other identifying information, such

as descriptions, places or circumstances which could serve to identify them. Moreover, much of

the contents are duplicative of the information provided in exhibits which Defendants have

already filed and did not request to seal. Accordingly, Defendants’ request for a wholesale

sealing of the exhibits attached to Sergeant Tyree’s Declaration is DENIED WITHOUT

PREJUDICE to filing a new motion to seal, provided they show the requisite specific

compelling reasons. If Defendants choose to file a new motion, they must carefully consider the

Case 1:08-cv-01113-EPG Document 82 Filed 05/27/11 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 08cv1113

exhibits and request to seal only those portions which contain confidential informant names and

descriptions of events and information which could serve to identify them. In this regard,

Defendants must show specific compelling reasons why each portion of the exhibit should be

sealed. The court will not entertain a motion for wholesale sealing of voluminous documents

without a specific showing supporting such a request.

No later than June 1, 2011 Defendants shall make arrangements to retrieve the documents

they sought to file under seal.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 26, 2011

M. James Lorenz

United States District Court Judge

COPY TO: 

HON. PETER C. LEWIS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ALL PARTIES/COUNSEL

Case 1:08-cv-01113-EPG Document 82 Filed 05/27/11 Page 3 of 3