Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-00663/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-00663-13/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICHARD J. CRANE,

Plaintiff,

v.

MIKE McDONALD, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:11-cv-0663 KJM CKD P

ORDER

I. Introduction

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. In the operative First Amended Complaint (FAC), plaintiff alleges that he was 

denied outdoor exercise for long periods of time after being transferred to High Desert State 

Prison (HDSP) in September 2008, because the facility in which he was housed was placed on 

“lockdown” numerous times. (ECF No. 21.) Defendants have filed a motion for summary 

judgment. (ECF No. 77.) Pending before the court is defendants’ September 3, 2013 motion to 

seal documents in support of defendants’ motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 81.)

////

////

Case 2:11-cv-00663-KJM-CKD Document 84 Filed 02/26/14 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

II. Motion to Seal Documents

Most courts recognize a presumption of public access to court records based on common 

law and First Amendment grounds. The public therefore normally has the right to inspect and 

copy documents filed with the court. See Nixon v. Warner Comm., Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597-98 

(1978); Globe Newspaper v. Superior Court for Norfolk County, 457 U.S. 596, 603 (1982); 

Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. General Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1212 (9th Cir. 2002). 

However, public access may be denied where the court determines that court-filed documents 

may be used for improper purposes. Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598; Hagestad v. Tragesser, 49 F.3d 

1430, 1433-1434 (9th Cir. 1995). Courts should consider “the interests advanced by the parties in 

light of the public interest and the duty of the courts.” Id. at 1434 (quoting Nixon,435 U.S. at 

602). The Supreme Court has acknowledged that the decision to seal documents is “one best left 

to the sound discretion of the trial court, a discretion to be exercised in light of the relevant facts 

and circumstances of the particular case.” Id. at 599. After taking all relevant factors into 

consideration, the district court must base its decision on a compelling reason and articulate the 

factual basis for its ruling, without relying on hypothesis or conjecture. Hagestad, 49 F.3d at 

1434. Local Rule 141allows the court to seal documents only upon written order. L.R. 141(a). 

Generally, the contents of such documents are of a nature that require the court to maintain the 

confidentiality of the document. For example, the contents may reveal information that may 

jeopardize the safety of particular individuals.

Defendants request to file under seal documents marked Exhibit F to defendants’ motion 

for summary judgment, consisting of 224 consecutively-numbered pages. In conjunction with the 

instant motion, defendants have submitted an electronic copy of Exhibit F for the court’s in 

camera review. (See ECF No. 81.) 

Defendants characterize Exhibit F as “Program Status Reports, section C, from modified 

programming emanating out of High Desert State Prison” and note that the reports “have been 

designated as confidential by the California Department of Correction and Rehabilitation.” (See

ECF No. 81.) Defendants assert that the material in Exhibit F, if made public,

////

Case 2:11-cv-00663-KJM-CKD Document 84 Filed 02/26/14 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

might jeopardize the safety and security of inmates and staff, and 

the institutions in which they are housed or work. The documents 

contain the names of prison officials who interviewed and 

communicated with confidential informants, or other prisoners who 

provided information to staff during investigations following the 

implementation of modified programming at High Desert State 

Prison. If their names or identities became known, their safety 

would be endangered. 

(Defendants’ Request to File Documents Under Seal, submitted September 9, 2013.)

The general content of Exhibit F, absent names and identifying information, is set forth in 

Defendants’ Undisputed Facts Nos. 41-75, which have been served on plaintiff in conjunction 

with the motion for summary judgment and are publicly available on the court’s docket. (ECF 

No. 80 at 7-12.) In brief, Exhibit F documents a series of lockdowns and modified programs at

Facility B of HDSP between September 2008 and March 2010.1The records comprising Exhibit 

F purportedly establish (as will be determined on summary judgment) that these lockdowns were 

implemented for security purposes in the wake of, e.g., prison staff learning that inmates were 

targeting guards for assault, prison staff learning that dangerous pieces of metal were missing, 

violent attacks by inmates on other inmates, and gang-related violence. (See id.) Having 

reviewed the documents submitted in camera as Exhibit F, the undersigned notes that they 

identify correctional staff and prisoner informants involved in the investigation of such incidents; 

many pages are marked “Confidential.” 

The court does not seal case documents or exhibits from public view without good cause. 

Here, defendants plausibly represent that the prison inmates and staff identified in Exhibit F 

 

1

In an attached declaration, the custodian of records at HDSP states: 

A Program Status Report is generated for each modified program 

affecting the inmate population at High Desert State Prison. The 

documents and entries in documents pertaining to Program Status 

Reports are prepared at or near the time of their occurrence by 

persons with knowledge of the circumstances or events. 

The documents [in Exhibit F] are true and correct copies of all 

Program Status Reports for High Desert State Prison regarding 

Facility B from June 2008 through [October 25, 2012].

(Defendants’ Request to File Documents Under Seal, submitted September 9, 2013.)

Case 2:11-cv-00663-KJM-CKD Document 84 Filed 02/26/14 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

would be in danger if their identities were publicly known, and that institutional security would 

be at risk if these materials were publicly disclosed. It is the practice of this court to maintain 

case documents under seal for an undetermined time period, until they are ordered unsealed by 

the court. Accordingly, the court shall grant defendants’ motion to seal and direct the Clerk of 

Court to seal Exhibit F until it is ordered unsealed by the court. 

In its order of October 16, 2013, the court stated that plaintiff would not be required to file 

an opposition to defendants’ motion for summary judgment until the motion to seal was resolved. 

(ECF No. 83.) At this time, the court will grant plaintiff thirty days to file an opposition to 

defendants’ motion for summary judgment.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 

1. Defendants’ motion to file documents under seal (ECF No. 81) is granted; 

2. The Clerk of Court is directed to seal the case documents submitted by defendants as 

Exhibit F to defendants’ motion for summary judgment, until they are ordered unsealed by the 

court; and

3. Plaintiff shall file and serve an opposition to defendants’ motion for summary 

judgment no later than thirty days from the date of this order. (See ECF No. 78.) Failure to 

timely file an opposition will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed.

Dated: February 26, 2014

2 / cran0663.seal

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:11-cv-00663-KJM-CKD Document 84 Filed 02/26/14 Page 4 of 4