Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_11-cv-05817/USCOURTS-cand-3_11-cv-05817-33/pdf.json

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

---

United States District Court

Northern District of California

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 

RAFAEL MATEOS SANDOVAL, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

COUNTY OF SONOMA, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 11-cv-05817-TEH 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART 

PLAINTIFF’S ADMINISTRATIVE 

MOTION TO FILE DOCUMENTS IN 

THE PUBLIC RECORD; DENYING 

PLAINTIFF’S ADMINISTRATIVE 

MOTION TO FILE DOCUMENTS 

UNDER SEAL; DENYING 

DEFENDANT’S CROSS-MOTION 

TO REMOVE DOCUMENTS FROM 

THE PUBLIC RECORD

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Sandoval’s administrative motion to file 

documents in the public record and related administrative motion to file documents under 

seal. Docket Nos. 225, 226. These documents relate to Sandoval’s opposition to 

Defendant Sheriff Freitas’s motion for summary judgment. See Mot. (Docket No. 216);

Opp’n (Docket No. 219). For the reasons set forth below, the Court finds that the 

documents submitted contemporaneously with Plaintiff’s opposition should remain in the 

public record. However, the documents filed contemporaneously with Plaintiff’s 

administrative motions will not be considered and should not be filed, under seal or 

otherwise. The Court therefore GRANTS IN PART Plaintiff’s motion to permit 

documents to be filed in the public record, DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to file documents 

under seal, and DENIES Defendant’s cross-motion to remove documents from the public 

record. 

BACKGROUND

On December 15, 2014, Defendant Freitas filed a motion for summary judgment 

based on his qualified immunity for the remaining claim against him in his personal 

Case 3:11-cv-05817-TEH Document 231 Filed 01/12/15 Page 1 of 5
United States District Court

Northern District of California

2

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

capacity. On December 29, Sandoval filed a timely opposition, along with supporting 

evidence, including deposition testimony of Deputy Eric Smith. However, one day later, 

Sandoval filed additional objections to Sheriff Freitas’s evidence, and included a portion of 

an investigative file as an exhibit. Docket No. 221. Both the deposition testimony and the 

investigative file are covered by a Protective Order entered on July 17, 2014, and Sheriff 

Freitas objected accordingly in his reply. Reply at 15 (Docket No. 223); Keck Supp. Decl. 

at 2-3 (Docket No. 223-1); see also Protective Order (Docket No. 162). 

On January 7, 2015, Sandoval filed an administrative motion to file evidence in the 

public record, as well as an administrative motion to file the evidence under seal for the 

purposes of considering the former administrative motion. Rather than limit these 

administrative motions to those portions of the deposition testimony and investigative file 

already submitted, however, Sandoval also included additional deposition testimony of 

Sheriff Freitas and significantly more content from the investigative file in his request. 

Admin. Mot. at 2. 

On January 9, Sheriff Freitas responded in opposition to both of the pending 

administrative motions. Docket Nos. 227, 228. Sheriff Freitas also moved to have the 

documents that were filed in violation of the Protective Order removed from the public 

record. Freitas Admin. Opp’n at 4-5 (Docket No. 228). 

DISCUSSION

There is “a strong presumption in favor of [public] access when deciding whether to 

seal records.” Apple Inc. v. Pystar Corp., 658 F.3d 1150, 1162 (9th Cir. 2011). This

strong presumption “applies fully to dispositive pleadings, including motions for summary

judgment and related attachments . . . because the resolution of a dispute on the merits . . . 

is at the heart of the interest in ensuring the ‘public’s understanding of the judicial process

and of significant public events.’” Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 

1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2004) (quoting Valley Broadcasting Co. v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 798 F.2d 

1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1986)). 

Case 3:11-cv-05817-TEH Document 231 Filed 01/12/15 Page 2 of 5
United States District Court

Northern District of California

3

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

A party seeking to file documents under seal “must articulate compelling reasons

supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the general history of access and the

public policies favoring disclosure . . . .” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178-79 (internal 

alteration and citation omitted). “The ‘compelling reasons’ standard is invoked even if the 

dispositive motion, or its attachments, were previously filed under seal or protective 

order.” Id. at 1179. 

Nevertheless, parties must respect the terms of a protective order. The Court has a 

Standing Order to address this situation:

6. Designating material as “confidential” under a protective 

order shall not automatically entitle the material to filing under 

seal. Requests to file material under seal must be narrowly 

tailored and filed in accordance with Civil Local Rule 79-5. 

Before seeking to file under seal any material designated as 

“confidential,” counsel shall review the material to make a 

good faith determination as to whether the material qualifies as 

sealable as defined in Civil Local Rule 79-5(b). If the filing 

party has designated the material as “confidential” and counsel 

determines that the material need not be filed under seal, 

counsel shall remove the “confidential” designation and file the 

material in the public record. If the material has been 

designated as “confidential” by another party and counsel 

determines that the material need not be filed under seal, 

counsel shall meet and confer with opposing counsel to attempt 

to resolve whether the material may be filed in the public 

record; only after meeting and conferring in good faith should 

a party file a motion to file any material under seal. The burden 

of establishing that any material is sealable rests on the party 

seeking to maintain confidentiality.

Civil Standing Order for the Honorable Thelton E. Henderson at 2. 

Needless to say, this process was not followed in this case. It is undisputed that 

Sandoval publicly filed material that Sheriff Freitas had designated “confidential” in 

support of his opposition, without meeting and conferring to resolve whether the material 

could be filed in the public record, and without first filing an administrative motion to file 

the material under seal. Sandoval therefore violated the terms of the Protective Order, and 

of this Court’s own Standing Orders. 

However, Sandoval’s violations do not change the fact that the burden rests on 

Sheriff Freitas to establish that there are compelling reasons to file this material under seal. 

Case 3:11-cv-05817-TEH Document 231 Filed 01/12/15 Page 3 of 5
United States District Court

Northern District of California

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

This he has not done. Merely pointing to the Protective Order is not enough. The Court 

recognizes that the publicly filed material includes the names of certain officers of the 

Sonoma County Sheriff’s Office, as well as an email summary of the incident at issue in 

this case. However, Sheriff Freitas has given the Court virtually no justification, much less 

compelling reasons, to withhold this information from public view. For this reason, the 

Court will not now order the removal of the evidence from the public record.

Although the Court will not order the removal of this evidence from the public 

record, neither will the Court consider evidence that was filed late. “The opposition must 

be filed and served no later than 14 days after the motion was filed,” Civil L.R. 7-3(a), 

which in this case imposed an opposition deadline of December 29, 2014. Sandoval’s 

separately filed objections to evidence, Docket No. 221, were filed on December 30, which 

was past the filing deadline. Filing these objections as a separate document also violated 

the requirement that “[a]ny evidentiary or procedural objections must be contained within 

the brief or memorandum.” Civil L.R. 7-3(a). As a result, the Court will not consider the 

objections, nor the evidence submitted therewith.1

 Sandoval also filed additional evidence with his administrative motion that he did 

not file with his opposition, including more pages from the investigative file and 

deposition testimony of Sheriff Freitas. This evidence was late, under both Local Rule 7-

3(a), and Local Rule 7-3(d), which states that, “[o]nce a reply is filed, no additional 

memoranda, papers or letters may be filed without prior Court approval.” The Court will 

not consider this late-filed evidence. 

The Local Rules are not optional. Nor are this Court’s Standing Orders. In the 

future, in order to file information designated “confidential,” the parties must abide by the 

process set out in the Court’s Standing Orders and Civil Local Rule 79-5, before any such 

 

1

The Court recognizes that “[o]nly admissible evidence may be considered in

deciding a motion for summary judgment.” Miller v. Glenn Miller Productions, Inc., 454 

F.3d 975, 988 (9th Cir. 2006). The Court will independently review the admissibility of 

all of the evidence submitted, as do other courts in this district when similar circumstances 

arise. See, e.g., Hennighan v. Insphere Ins. Solutions, Inc., No. 13–cv–00638–WHO, 2014 

WL 1600034 at *5-6 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 21, 2014). 

Case 3:11-cv-05817-TEH Document 231 Filed 01/12/15 Page 4 of 5
United States District Court

Northern District of California

5

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

material is filed in the public record. Failure to follow these rules, or the deadline and 

filing requirements of the Rules and Standing Orders, may result in the summary exclusion 

of improperly filed evidence or the imposition of monetary sanctions. 

CONCLUSION

 For the reasons stated above, Plaintiff’s administrative motion to permit certain 

documents to be filed in the public record is GRANTED IN PART as follows: the 

deposition testimony of Deputy Eric Smith filed as Exhibit D to Cook Decl., Docket No. 

219-1, and the pages from the investigative file submitted as Exhibit B to Cook Decl., 

Docket No. 221, shall remain in the public record. The other documents referred to in 

Plaintiff’s administrative motions shall not be filed in support of Plaintiff’s opposition, 

publicly or otherwise. Plaintiff’s administrative motion to file documents under seal is 

DENIED. Defendant’s cross-motion to remove documents from the public record is 

DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 01/12/15 _____________________________________ 

THELTON E. HENDERSON 

United States District Judge

Case 3:11-cv-05817-TEH Document 231 Filed 01/12/15 Page 5 of 5