Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01338/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01338-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other 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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

BOBBY DARRELL JOHNSON, et al., 

Plaintiffs,

v.

SHASTA COUNTY, et al., 

Defendants.

No. 2:14-cv-01338-KJM-EFB 

ORDER 

Defendants Sutter County, Matthew Maples, James Casner and Michael Gwinnup 

request the sealing of a document to be submitted in support of plaintiffs’ motion for partial 

summary judgment and Sutter County defendants’ motion for summary judgment. ECF No. 65 at 

2. As explained below, the request is denied. 

I. BACKGROUND 

On June 4, 2014, plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint against defendants 

Shasta County, Cary Erickson, Tom Flemming, Ray Hughes, David Renfer, Kyle Wallace, Eric 

Magrini, Gene Randal, Nick Thompson, Craig Tippings, Jesse Wells, Sutter County, Matthew 

Maples, James Casner, and Michael Gwinnup (collectively “the defendants”). Pls.’ First Am. 

Compl., ECF No. 5 (“Compl.”). This complaint alleged the following: (1) violation of the Fourth 

and Fourteenth Amendments under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against all individual defendants; (2) a 

Case 2:14-cv-01338-KJM-EFB Document 97 Filed 11/18/15 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

claim under Monell v. Department of Social Services of City of New York, 436 U.S. 658 (1978), 

against Shasta and Sutter Counties; (3) violation of California Civil Code § 52.1 against all 

defendants; (4) negligence against all defendants; (5) assault and battery against all defendants; 

(6) false arrest or imprisonment against all defendants; and (7) violation of the Americans with 

Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Rehabilitation Act against Shasta and Sutter Counties. See

generally Compl. All of the claims arise out of defendants’ execution of a search warrant on 

plaintiffs’ residence.

On July 9, 2014, defendants James Casner, Michael Gwinnup, Matthew Maples 

and Sutter County filed a motion to dismiss, ECF No. 6, which the court granted in part and 

denied in part. ECF No. 18. The court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ claim 

against defendant Gwinnup arising out of the search warrant on the basis of judicial deception, 

with leave to amend. Id. at 22. The court granted the motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ claim of 

negligent hiring, training, supervision and retention against defendant Sutter County with 

prejudice. Id. at 23. The court denied defendants’ motion as to plaintiffs’ other claims. Id. at

22–23. Plaintiffs subsequently filed a second amended complaint against all defendants. ECF 

No. 23. In the second amended complaint, plaintiffs amended claims to the extent allowed by the 

court, re-alleging claims from the first amended complaint arising out of defendant’s execution of 

a search warrant on plaintiffs’ residence. Id.

II. LEGAL STANDARD 

Local Rule 141(a) provides that “[d]ocuments may be sealed only by written order 

of the Court, upon the showing required by applicable law.” The request to seal “shall set forth 

the statutory or other authority for sealing, the requested duration, the identity, by name or 

category, of persons to be permitted access to the documents, and all other relevant information.” 

Id. 141(b). “[A] party may submit an opposition . . . within three days of the date of service . . . .” 

Id. 141(c). “The opposition shall not be filed . . . .” Id.

The common-law “right to inspect and copy judicial records is not absolute.”

Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978). A litigant may request court records 

be sealed or redacted. See id. (listing traditional examples). In the Ninth Circuit, courts faced 

Case 2:14-cv-01338-KJM-EFB Document 97 Filed 11/18/15 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

with requests to seal or redact begin “with a strong presumption in favor of access to court 

records.” Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003). In the 

context of a dispositive motion, such as one for partial summary judgment, the party seeking to 

seal or redact a document “bears the burden of overcoming this strong presumption” by 

“articulat[ing] 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 v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 

1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1135 and Hagestad v. Tragesser, 49 F.3d 1430, 

1434 (9th Cir. 1995)) (quotation marks and alterations omitted). Commonly cited “compelling 

reasons” include the need to avoid “private spite,” “public scandal,” and to prevent a court’s 

records from becoming “reservoirs of libelous statement for press consumption,” or “sources of 

business information that might harm a litigant’s competitive standing.” Nixon, 435 U.S. at 589 

(citations and internal quotation marks omitted). Hypothetical or conjectural harm is not a 

compelling reason. Hagestad, 49 F.3d at 1434. A document may be the subject of a previously 

entered protective order and yet be disclosed when attached to a dispositive motion. See

Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1183. 

III. DISCUSSION 

Defendants request Search Warrant No. S13-149, attached as Exhibit 1 to the 

Declaration of T. Kennedy Helm in support of plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment, 

be sealed. ECF No. 68-1. Defendants argue the document was produced subject to a stipulated 

protective order on July 28, 2015. ECF No. 53. Plaintiffs have now attached it to their motion 

for summary judgment. ECF No. 68-1. 

This court has noted in its scheduling order that “protective orders covering the 

discovery phase of litigation shall not govern the filing of sealed or redacted documents on the 

public docket.” ECF No. 32 at 5. The fact that a document was produced subject to a discovery 

protective order is not a “compelling reason” for sealing it. Defendants simply point to the 

discovery protective order, and fail to articulate any compelling reasons “supported by specific 

Case 2:14-cv-01338-KJM-EFB Document 97 Filed 11/18/15 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

factual findings” that the “court files might be a vehicle for improper purposes.” See Kamakana,

447 F.3d at 1179.

Because defendants have not shown a “compelling reason” as to why the search 

warrant filed with the pending motion for summary judgment should be sealed, defendants’ 

motion is denied.

IV. CONCLUSION 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendants’ motion to seal is 

DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 17, 2015. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 2:14-cv-01338-KJM-EFB Document 97 Filed 11/18/15 Page 4 of 4