Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01516/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01516-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

2 

3 

4 

6 

7 

8 

9 

11 

12 

13 

14 

16 

17 

18 

19 

21 

22 

23 

24 

26 

27 

28 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

TYREL ATCHLEY, an individual; 

SCARLETT "TARA" ATCHLEY, an 

individual' MAGNASSUN 

ATCHLEY, a minor by and through Mesa Atchley, his Guardian Ad LItem, 

Plaintiffs, 

vs. 

LA MESA POLICE OFFICERt-, SEAN 

SNOW, an individual; LA ME~A 

POLICE OFFICER RODOLFO 

SALAZAR, an individual; COUNTY 

OF SAN DIEGO HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES; a California 

Public Entity; MARIA LOUISA 

CORIA, an Individual; and DOES 1 

through 10, inclusive, 

Defendants. 

Introduction 

CASE NO. IICVlSI6-JM 

(WMc) 

CONSOLIDATED ORDER 

ON VARIOUS PENDING 

MOTIONS 

(ECF Nos. 62, 67, 68) 

There are several pending motions presently before the Court including: (1) 

Defendants' motion to file juvenile records under seal (ECF No. 62); (2) Plaintiffs' 

ex parte motion to extend the deadline to designate expert witnesses (ECF No. 67); 

and, (3) Plaintiffs' ex parte motion to file under seal documents in support of 

Plaintiffs' counsel's motion to withdraw as counsel (ECF No. 68), All motions are 

unopposed. The Court will first address the motions to file certain documents under 

seal (ECF Nos. 62,68) then the motion to extend the deadline to designate expert 

witnesses (ECF No. 67). 

- 1 - IlcvIS\6-JM (WMc} 
5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

2 

3 

4 

6 

7 

8 

9 

11 

12 

13 

14 

16 

17 

18 

19 

21 

22 

23 

24 

26 

27 

28 

Motions to File Documents Under Seal 

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

on common law and First Amendment grounds and 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 reI. Estates ofByrd 

v. General Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1212 (9th Cir. 2002). However, public 

access may be denied where the court determines 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 ofthe public interest and the duty ofthe courts." Hagestad, 49 

F.3d at 1434 (quoting Nixon, 435 U.S. at 602). The decision to seal documents is 

left to discretion ofthe trial court; the trial court exercises its discretion in light of 

the relevant facts and circumstances ofthe particular case. Nixon, 435 U.S. at 599. 

However, it is the moving party's burden to make a "particularized showing" as to 

why information should be sealed. Kamakana v. City and Cnty. ofHonolulu, 447 

F.3d 1172, 1180 (9th Cir. 2006). 

In regards to Defendants' motion to file the juvenile records under seal, all of 

the relevant facts and circumstances point to seal ing the records. Although there is a 

presumptive right of public access to court records, the Court may deny such access 

in order to protect sensitive personal information, such as medical and psychiatric 

records. In re Application to Enforce Administrative Subpoenas ofSE.C. v. Nicita, 

Civil No. 07CV0772 WQH (AlB), 2007 WL 4365553, at *1 and n. 2 (S.D. Cal. 

Dec. 11, 2007). The documents Defendants seek to file under seal include the minor 

Plaintiffs medical records which are confidential under state law. See Cal. Welf. & 

Inst. Code § 827. Furthermore, the parties filed ajoint motion to dismiss the minor 

Plaintiffs claims and, therefore, the future relevance of these records is uncertain. 

Finding good cause for sealing these documents, the Court GRANTS Defendants' 

-2 I tcvt5t6·JM (WMc) 
5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

2 

3 

4 

6 

7 

8 

9 

II 

12 

13 

14 

16 

17 

18 

19 

21 

22 

23 

24 

26 

27 

28 

request to seal these documents pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79.2 and directs the 

Clerk to file them under seal. 

In regards to Plaintiffs ex parte motion to file under seal certain documents 

in support of Plaintiffs' counsel's request to withdraw as counsel, the Court denies 

this request because Plaintiffs' counsel failed to make a "particularized showing" as 

to what specific information should be sealed and why. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 

1180. Plaintiffs' counsel cites to California Rule of Professional Conduct 3-100 

(duty of confidentiality) but does not specifically articulate its applicability to the 

documents in the request. The documents Plaintiffs' counsel seeks to file under seal 

contain facts relating to Plaintiffs' failure to comply with the terms ofthe fee 

arrangement. Although, under California law, a written fee contract between an 

attorney and a client is subject to the duty of confidentiality and the attorney-client 

privilege (Bus. & Prof Code § 6149), courts have refused to seal fee arrangement 

information absent a particularized showing oflikely harm (e.g., fee arrangement 

information reveals litigation strategy). Ferrington v. McAfee, Inc., Nos. 

10-CV-OI455-LHK, 11-CV-0721-LHK, 2013 WL 3814474, at *2 (N.D. Cal. July 

22,2013) citing Travelers Prop. Cas. Co. ofAm. v. Centex Homes, 11-3638-SC, 

2013 WL 707918, at * I (N.D.Cal. Feb. 26, 2013) (holding "the number of hours 

billed, the parties' fee arrangement, costs and total fees paid do not constitute 

privileged information"). Plaintiffs have failed to articulate the harm they will suffer 

if this information is made public. Accordingly, Plaintiffs' ex parte motion is 

DENIED. 

Plaintiffs' Ex Parte Motion to Extend the Deadline to Designate Expert Witnesses 

Plaintiffs move the Court to extend the deadline to designate expert witnesses 

in order for Plaintiffs to have additional time to identity and retain experts should 

the court grant Plaintiffs' counsel's motion to be relieved as counsel. (ECF No. 67, 

at 2). Plaintiffs' specifically requested the deadline to designate experts be extended 

from June 14,2013 to July 26, 2013. Id. The Court granted Plaintiffs' counsel's 

- 3 - Ilcv1516-JM (WMc) 
5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

2 

3 

4 

6 

7 

8 

9 

11 

12 

13 

14 

16 

17 

18 

19 

21 

22 

23 

24 

26 

27 

28 

motion to be relieved on July 18,2013. (ECF No. 79). Since then, the Court 

conducted a series of telephonic status conference to (a) find out if Plaintiffs 

intended to proceed in this action and hire new counsel, (b) to follow up on 

Plaintiffs' attempts to hire new counsel, and (c) to closely manage discovery. 

Because the time frame for the relief requested by Plaintiffs has passed and because 

Plaintiffs have not retained any experts as of the date ofthis order, Plaintiffs' 

motion is DENIED without prejudice. 

Conclusion 

For the reasons stated above, Defendants' motion to file juvenile records 

under seal (ECF No. 62) is GRANTED; (2) Plaintiffs' ex parte motion to extend 

the deadline to designate expert witnesses (ECF No. 67) is DENIED without 

prejudice; and, (3) Plaintiffs' ex parte motion to file under seal documents in 

support of Plaintiffs' counsel's motion to withdraw as counsel (ECF No. 68) is 

DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: November 21,2013 

Hon. William McCurine, Jr. 

U.S. M~gistrate Judge United Slates District Court 

- 4 - Ilcv1516-JM (WMc)