Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-00228/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-00228-76/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 DENYING MOTION TO SEAL

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 DENYING MOTIONS TO SEAL

Re: Dkt. No. 630, 660, 682

Before the court are three motions to file deposition materials under seal. First, plaintiffs 

move to file under seal a transcript of the deposition of defendant Beth Miller that plaintiff Adil 

Hiramanek, rather than a certified court reporter, created. Dkt. No. 630. Plaintiff also seeks to file 

under seal certain exhibits to the deposition. Because the court’s Electronic Case Filing system 

does not allow pro se litigants to file documents electronically under seal, plaintiffs emailed the 

documents that plaintiffs seek to file under seal to the undersigned judge’s courtroom deputy on 

June 19, 2016. Second, defendant Miller moves to seal the deposition transcripts of Adil 

Hiramanek, Roda Hiramanek, Beth Miller, Daryl McChristian, and Caitlin Burgess. Dkt. No. 660. 

Finally, defendant moves to seal the deposition transcript of Dr. Samuel Cipoletti. Dkt. No. 682.

“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 

Case 3:13-cv-00228-JD Document 715 Filed 09/12/16 Page 1 of 4
2

5:13-cv-00228-RMW

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO SEAL

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

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) (requiring the submitting party to attach 

a “proposed order that is narrowly tailored to seal only the sealable material” which “lists in table 

format each document or portion thereof that is sought to be sealed,” and an “unredacted version 

of the document” that indicates “by highlighting or other clear method, the portions of the 

document that have been omitted from the redacted version.”). “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).

Case 3:13-cv-00228-JD Document 715 Filed 09/12/16 Page 2 of 4
3

5:13-cv-00228-RMW

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO SEAL

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

Plaintiffs assert that they are concerned that the transcript and exhibits they wish to seal 

may refer to (1) criminal charges against Mr. Hiramanek that were subsequently dismissed; (2) 

medical information; and (3) “other subjects, including Defendant Miller’s private information.” 

Courts have recognized confidentiality in patients’ medical files. See, e.g., Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 

1186. On the other hand, a party’s voluntary disclosure of otherwise confidential information can 

constitute grounds for denying a motion to seal. With these standards in mind, the courts rules on 

the instant motion as follows.

Motion 

to Seal

Document to be 

Sealed

Ruling Reason/Explanation

630 Plaintiff’s Unofficial 

Transcript of the 

Deposition of Beth 

Miller (Emailed to 

courtroom deputy)

DENIED Request is not narrowly tailored to confidential 

information. Plaintiffs seek to seal every page of 

the transcript, see Dkt. No. 630-1 (redacted copy), 

even though they subsequently filed 55 pages of 

the transcript in the public docket without any 

confidentiality restrictions, Dkt. No. 635. 

Plaintiffs do not indicate how, if at all, they 

complied with the Stipulated Protective Order’s 

requirement to “identify on the record, before the 

close of the deposition, hearing, or other

proceeding, all protected testimony.” See Dkt. No. 

337 ¶ 5.2(b).

Miller does not assert that confidential information 

was discussed during her deposition. See Dkt. No. 

660 at 2.

630 Exhibits 1-4 to the 

Deposition of Beth 

Miller (Emailed to 

courtroom deputy)

DENIED Request is not narrowly tailored to confidential 

information. The operative, publicly filed 

complaint discusses the criminal charges against 

Adil Hiramanek that were subsequently dismissed. 

Dkt No. 94-1 ¶¶ 178-179. In light of that fact, the 

court is unable to discern how, if at all, the material 

plaintiffs wish to seal is confidential.

660 Transcript of Adil 

Hiramanek’s 

Deposition Vol. 1 

(660-1)

DENIED No supporting declaration filed. Civ. L.R. 

79-5(e)(1).

660 Transcript of Adil 

Hiramanek’s 

Deposition Vol. 2 

(660-2)

DENIED No supporting declaration filed. Civ. L.R. 

79-5(e)(1).

Case 3:13-cv-00228-JD Document 715 Filed 09/12/16 Page 3 of 4
4

5:13-cv-00228-RMW

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO SEAL

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

660 Transcript of Roda 

Hiramanek’s 

Deposition (660-3)

DENIED No supporting declaration filed. Civ. L.R. 

79-5(e)(1).

660 Transcript of Beth 

Miller’s Deposition 

(660-4)

DENIED No supporting declaration filed. Civ. L.R. 

79-5(e)(1).

Transcript discussed in open court on August 2, 

2016.

660 Transcript of Daryl 

McChristian’s 

Deposition (660-5)

DENIED No supporting declaration filed. Civ. L.R. 

79-5(e)(1).

660 Transcript of Caitlin 

Burgess’s Deposition 

(660-6)

DENIED No supporting declaration filed. Civ. L.R. 

79-5(e)(1).

682 Transcript of Dr. 

Samuel Cipoletti’s 

Deposition (682-1)

DENIED No supporting declaration filed. Civ. L.R. 

79-5(e)(1).

The parties may refer to testimony from the transcripts above in open court, subject to any 

objections to the substance of material being discussed. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 12, 2016

______________________________________

Ronald M. Whyte

United States District Judge

Case 3:13-cv-00228-JD Document 715 Filed 09/12/16 Page 4 of 4