Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-00228/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-00228-52/pdf.json

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

---

1

5:13-cv-00228-RMW

ORDER REGARDING ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO FILE UNDER SEAL

RS

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

ADIL HIRAMANEK, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

L. MICHAEL CLARK, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 5:13-cv-00228-RMW 

ORDER REGARDING 

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO 

FILE UNDER SEAL

Re: Dkt. Nos. 437, 478, 486, 487

Before the court are administrative motions to file under seal certain documents in 

connection with the parties’ summary judgment briefing: (1) an Administrative Motion to File 

Under Seal by defendant Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, Dkt. No. 478; (2) 

two “Ex Parte Motions Regarding Sealing”

1

by pro se plaintiffs Adil and Roda Hiramanek, Dkt. 

Nos. 486 and 487. For the reasons stated below, defendant’s motion is GRANTED, and plaintiffs’ 

motion is GRANTED IN PART.

I. DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SEAL (DKT. NO. 478)

On December 31, 2015, defendant Superior Court filed certain documents related to 

plaintiffs’ Americans With Disabilities Act requests in support of defendant’s motion for summary 

 

1

The court interprets these motions as administrative motions to file under seal.

Case 3:13-cv-00228-JD Document 503 Filed 02/12/16 Page 1 of 4
2

5:13-cv-00228-RMW

ORDER REGARDING ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO FILE UNDER SEAL

RS

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

judgment. Dkt. No. 435-3 to 435-5. On January 12, 2016, the parties stipulated that these 

documents should be placed under seal. Dkt. Nos. 444 to 445. On January 29, 2016, the court 

ordered defendant to file an administrative motion to file the documents under seal and ordered 

plaintiffs to submit a declaration in support of the motion. Dkt. No. 474. In response to the court’s 

order, defendant filed the instant motion, Dkt. No. 478, and plaintiffs filed a declaration in 

support, Dkt. No. 483.

II. PLAINTIFFS’ MOTIONS (DKT. NOS. 486-487)

On December 31, 2015, pro se plaintiffs Adil and Roda Hiramanek filed an administrative 

motion to file a declaration and attached exhibits in support of plaintiffs’ motion for summary 

judgment against defendant Superior Court under seal. Dkt. No. 437. On January 29, 2016, the 

court denied that motion for noncompliance with Civil Local Rule 79-5 in part because plaintiffs 

lodged the documents (and several accompanying deposition videos on DVD) with the court 

instead of filing the documents using the court’s Electronic Case Filing (ECF) system. Dkt. No. 

473. It was also unclear whether plaintiffs had served opposing counsel with the materials lodged 

with the court. 

Plaintiffs now inform the court that despite their efforts to submit their filing via ECF, pro 

se litigants like plaintiffs are technically unable to file documents under seal on ECF. Dkt. Nos. 

486, 487. Accordingly, on February 3, 2016, plaintiffs re-filed their motion to seal, Dkt. No. 

486-4, emailed a PDF copy of the declaration and documents that they had lodged with the court 

to the undersigned judge’s courtroom deputy, and copied opposing counsel. Because plaintiffs 

attempted in good faith to comply with the court’s order and transmitted their submission to 

opposing counsel, the court will accept the declaration and supporting exhibits as filed and instruct 

the clerk to place these documents on the court’s docket. The court’s acceptance of these 

documents into the docket is without prejudice to any objections by defendants regarding the 

substance of the documents. The court’s summary judgment order will address those objections to 

the extent necessary.

Case 3:13-cv-00228-JD Document 503 Filed 02/12/16 Page 2 of 4
3

5:13-cv-00228-RMW

ORDER REGARDING ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO FILE UNDER SEAL

RS

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

III. ANALYSIS

The court now turns to whether the parties’ submissions should be filed under seal. 

“Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records and 

documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 

447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 

& n. 7 (1978)). Accordingly, when considering a sealing request, “a ‘strong presumption in favor 

of access’ is the starting point.” Id. (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 

1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). Parties seeking to seal judicial records relating to dispositive motions 

bear the burden of overcoming the presumption with “compelling reasons” that outweigh the 

general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure. Id. at 1178-79.

A protective order sealing the documents during discovery may reflect the court’s previous 

determination that good cause exists to keep the documents sealed, see Kamakana, 447 F.3d at

1179-80, but a blanket protective order that allows the parties to designate confidential documents 

does not provide sufficient judicial scrutiny to determine whether each particular document should 

remain sealed. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(A) (“Reference to a stipulation or protective order that 

allows a party to designate certain documents as confidential is not sufficient to establish that a 

document, or portions thereof, are sealable.”).

In addition to making particularized showings of good cause, parties moving to seal 

documents must comply with the procedures established by Civ. L.R. 79-5. Pursuant to Civ. L.R. 

79-5(b), a sealing order is appropriate only upon a request that establishes the document is 

“sealable,” or “privileged or protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under 

the law.” “The request must be narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material, and 

must conform with Civil L.R. 79-5(d).” Civ. L.R. 79-5(b). “Within 4 days of the filing of the 

Administrative Motion to File Under Seal, the Designating Party must file a declaration as 

required by subsection 79-5(d)(1)(A) establishing that all of the designated material is sealable.” 

Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).

With these standards in mind, the courts rules on the instant motions as follows. The 

Case 3:13-cv-00228-JD Document 503 Filed 02/12/16 Page 3 of 4
4

5:13-cv-00228-RMW

ORDER REGARDING ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO FILE UNDER SEAL

RS

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

documents the parties seek to seal reference plaintiffs’ medical conditions. Courts have recognized 

confidentiality in patients’ medical files. See, e.g., Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1186. The court is 

somewhat concerned that some of the documents that are the subject of the instant motions contain 

facts that the parties have voluntarily revealed in public filings or in open court. Nevertheless, the 

court is not convinced at this time that the public’s right of access to the underlying documents 

outweighs plaintiffs’ interest in maintaining the privacy of their medical records. Accordingly, the 

court GRANTS the Superior Court of California’s motion to seal, Dkt. No. 478, and GRANTS IN 

PART plaintiffs’ Ex Parte Motions Regarding Sealing, Dkt. Nos. 486 and 487. The court defers 

ruling at this time on whether to accept the DVDs that plaintiffs lodged with the court. 

The court notes that the U.S. District Court is a public forum, and this order does not 

decide whether the documents subject to this motion can be used in open court in any future 

proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 12, 2016

______________________________________

Ronald M. Whyte

United States District Judge

Case 3:13-cv-00228-JD Document 503 Filed 02/12/16 Page 4 of 4