Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-00240/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-00240-7/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FREDERICK MARCELES COOLEY,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF VALLEJO, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:14-cv-0240 DAD PS

ORDER

Pending before the court is defendant City of Vallejo‟ January 5, 2015 Notice of Request 

and Request to Seal Documents. (Dkt. Nos. 47 and 48.) Defendant‟s Request to Seal, seeks not 

only an order allowing the document labeled FLATER 001 - 003 to be filed with the court under 

seal but also an order authorizing plaintiff to be precluded from having access to that document 

which defendant is offering in support of its pending motion for reconsideration of the court‟s 

November 17, 2014 order granting plaintiff‟s motion to compel. 

There is a presumption in favor of public access to court records. See Phillips v. Gen. 

Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210 (9th Cir. 2002). “[A]ccess to judicial records is not absolute.” 

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

has distinguished between the public‟s interest in accessing court records filed in connection with 

nondispositive and dispositive motions. See In re Midland Nat‟l Life Ins. Co., 686 F.3d 1115 

(9th Cir. 2012); Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1172; Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 

Case 2:14-cv-00240-EFB Document 52 Filed 01/28/15 Page 1 of 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

2

1122 (9th Cir. 2003); Phillips, 307 F.3d 1206. To seal documents filed in connection with a 

dispositive motion, parties must show there are “compelling reasons” for doing so. Kamakana, 

447 F.3d at 1180, 1182 (“[T]he proponent of sealing bears the burden with respect to sealing.”). 

To demonstrate compelling reasons justifying sealing of such documents, a party is “required to 

present articulable facts identifying the interests favoring continued secrecy and to show that 

these specific interests [overcome] the presumption of access by outweighing the public interest 

in understanding the judicial process.” Id. at 1181 (internal citations, quotation marks, and 

emphasis omitted). “When sealing documents attached to a dispositive pleading, a district court 

must base its decision on a compelling reason and articulate the factual basis for its ruling, 

without relying on hypothesis or conjecture.” Id. at 1182 (internal citation, quotation marks, and 

emphasis omitted). See also Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass‟n, 605 F.3d 665, 679 (9th Cir. 2010), 

cert. denied Sub nom. Experian Info. Solutions, Inc. v. Pintos, ___ U.S. ___, 131 S. Ct. 900 

(2011) (vacating and remanding district court‟s denial of a sealing request where the court applied 

merely a good cause standard in addressing documents filed in connection with summary 

judgment motions). “In general, „compelling reasons‟ sufficient to outweigh the public‟s interest 

in disclosure and justify sealing court records exist when such „court files might become a vehicle 

for improper purposes,‟ such as the use of records to gratify private spite, promote public scandal, 

circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (quoting 

Nixon v. Warner Communs., Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 589 (1978)). “The „compelling reasons‟ 

standard is invoked even if the dispositive motion, or its attachments, were previously filed under 

seal or protective order.” Id.

On the other hand, parties seeking to file documents under seal in connection with a 

nondispositive motion must show only “good cause” for the requested sealing. Kamakana, 447 

F.3d at 1180; In re Midland, 686 F.3d at 1119 (“[A] particularized showing of „good cause‟ under 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) is sufficient to preserve the secrecy of sealed discovery 

documents attached to non-dispositive motions.” (citing Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1138)). The 

presumption of public access is rebutted by a showing of good cause because “of the weaker 

public interest in nondispositive materials,” Pintos, 605 F.3d at 678, and “[a]pplying a strong 

Case 2:14-cv-00240-EFB Document 52 Filed 01/28/15 Page 2 of 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

3

presumption of access to documents a court has already decided should be shielded from the 

public [by issuing a protective order] would surely undermine, and possibly eviscerate, the broad 

power of the district court to fashion protective orders.” Phillips, 307 F.3d at 1213 (addressing an 

intervenor‟s request to access confidential settlement information produced during discovery 

under a protective order). See also Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1135; Pintos, 605 F.3d at 678 (discussing 

the parties‟ interest in keeping discovery documents under seal in light of the public‟s lesser 

interest in nondispositive motions); Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1180. “For good cause to exist, the 

party seeking protection bears the burden of showing specific prejudice or harm will result . . . . 

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, 307 F.3d at 1210-11 (citations omitted).

Here, the document defendant seeks to file under seal is being submitted by defendant in 

support of its motion for reconsideration of an order granting discovery, which is a nondispositive 

motion. Therefore, the court considers whether the defendant has shown good cause for sealing 

the documents at issue. Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1135. Upon consideration of defendant‟s arguments 

and having reviewed the documents sought to be filed under seal, the court finds that the 

defendant has not shown that good cause exists for filing the document labeled FLATER 001-003 

under seal. In this regard, defendant‟s request to seal offers only a broad and vague allegation of 

potential harm posed by the disclosure of the document, unsubstantiated by specific examples or 

articulated reasoning. 

Moreover, a reading of the document sought to be filed under seal reveals that it does not 

contain information that could be properly characterized as sensitive investigative or personnel 

information. Instead, the documents merely discuss the City of Vallejo Police Department‟s 

records and retention policy, the number of documents that would potentially be required to be 

produced to plaintiff under the court‟s order granting the motion to compel and the amount of 

work and time necessary to prepare those documents for production. In no way can that routine 

information be accurately characterized as “confidential documents” that “contain sensitive 

investigation and personnel information” as claimed by defendant. (Dkt. No. 48 at 2.)

Case 2:14-cv-00240-EFB Document 52 Filed 01/28/15 Page 3 of 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

4

Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, it is HEREBY ORDERED AS FOLLOWS:

1. Defendant‟s January 5, 2015 request to seal is denied;

2. If defendant wishes the court to consider the document labeled “FLATER 001 – 003” 

in connection with its pending motion for reconsideration, it shall file the document 

with this court and serve it on plaintiff forthwith.

3. The hearing on defendant‟s motion for reconsideration is continued from February 13, 

2015 to February 20, 2015 at 10:00 a.m.

4. Plaintiff is directed to file opposition, if any, to defendant‟s motion to reconsider by 

February 6, 2015.1

5. Defendant shall file any reply by February 13, 2015. 

Dated: January 27, 2015

DAD:6

Ddad1\orders.consent\cooley0240.req.seal.den.ord.docx

 

1

The court is aware that plaintiff has already filed opposition to defendant‟s motion for 

reconsideration. Plaintiff may elect to file new opposition in light of this order or may stand on 

his opposition filed January 22, 2015. (Dkt. No. 51.)

Case 2:14-cv-00240-EFB Document 52 Filed 01/28/15 Page 4 of 4