Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_12-cv-06089/USCOURTS-cand-5_12-cv-06089-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:1651 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

---

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

DESHAWN LEE CAMPBELL,

Petitioner,

v.

RANDY GROUNDS,

Respondent.

Case No. 12-cv-06089-BLF 

ORDER GRANTING JOINT

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL 

PORTIONS OF PRIOR DISCOVERYRELATED FILINGS

[RE: ECF 41]

Before the Court is the parties’ Joint Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Portions of 

Prior Discovery-Related Filings (ECF 41). The parties move to seal portions of briefs and exhibits 

that were publicly filed in connection with a discovery motion brought by Petitioner on April 16, 

2015 (ECF 26); portions of the Court’s order thereon which was publicly filed on June 5, 2015

(ECF 32); and portions of briefs and exhibits that were publicly filed in connection with a related 

motion to quash brought by the Santa Clara County District Attorney on June 19, 2015 (ECF 35). 

The discovery motion sought information regarding an individual who may have knowledge of 

facts relevant to this case. The motion to quash objected to the production of certain information 

requested by Petitioner. The briefs and exhibits filed in connection with the discovery motion and 

the motion to quash contain specific information regarding the individual in question that might be 

sufficient to identify the individual. The Court’s order addressing the discovery motion recites 

and discusses some of that specific information. The parties request that the publicly filed 

documents at issue be sealed in order to protect the individual’s safety and that redacted versions 

of the documents be publicly filed.

A party moving to seal judicial records that are filed in connection with a non-dispositive 

motion must satisfy the “good cause” standard of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). 

Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1180 (9th Cir. 2006). In this district, a 

Case 5:12-cv-06089-BLF Document 47 Filed 08/20/15 Page 1 of 2
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

party moving to seal judicial records also must comply with Civil Local Rule 79-5, which requires

that a sealing request be “narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material.” Civil L.R. 

79-5(b). Here, the parties have shown good cause for sealing the records in question. Because of 

the nature of the crime involved, allowing the documents in question to remain publicly available 

in their entirety could put at risk the safety of the individual who may have relevant knowledge. 

The redacted versions of the documents submitted by the parties are narrowly tailored to excise 

information regarding the individual while leaving as much information as possible available to 

the public.

Accordingly, the parties’ joint administrative motion is GRANTED as follows:

(1) The Clerk shall seal the following documents (redacted versions of 

same to be publicly filed as set forth below):

(a) Petitioner’s Motion for Leave to Conduct Discovery (ECF 26), including all 

attachments thereto (ECF 26-1, 26-2, 26-3, 26-4, 26-5, 26-6, 26-7);

(b) Petitioner’s Motion to Shorten Time to Hear His Motion for Leave to 

Conduct Discovery (ECF 27);

(c) Respondent’s Opposition to Motion to Shorten Time (ECF 28);

(d) Respondent’s Partial Opposition to Discovery Motion (ECF 30);

(e) Petitioner’s Reply re Motion for Leave to Conduct Discovery (ECF 31);

(f) Order Granting Petitioner’s Motion for Leave to Conduct Discovery 

(ECF 32);

(g) Santa Clara County District Attorney’s Motion to Quash Portions of 

Subpoena, Etc. (ECF 35-1);

(h) Petitioner’s Opposition to Motion to Quash Portions of Subpoena (ECF 36); 

and

(i) Santa Clara County District Attorney’s Reply re Motion to Quash Subpoena 

(ECF 38-1) and supporting Declaration (ECF 38-2).

(2) Petitioner shall publicly file the proposed redacted versions of (a), (b), (e), and (h);

(3) Respondent shall publicly file the proposed redacted versions of (c), (d), (g), and 

(i); and

(4) The Court shall publicly file the proposed redacted version of (f).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 8/20/2015 ______________________________________

BETH LABSON FREEMAN

United States District Judge

Case 5:12-cv-06089-BLF Document 47 Filed 08/20/15 Page 2 of 2