Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01178/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01178-0/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

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID A. ESTRADA, 

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

M. JENNINGS, et al.,

 Defendants

1:15-cv-01178-GSA-PC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF=S 

MOTION TO SEAL COMPLAINT

(ECF No. 2.)

I. BACKGROUND

David A. Estrada (APlaintiff@) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this civil rights 

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. On July 29, 2015, Plaintiff filed the Complaint 

commencing this action, together with a motion to seal the Complaint. (ECF No. 1.)

II. SEALING DOCUMENTS

Federal courts have recognized a strong presumption that judicial records are accessible 

to the public. Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). 

“Unless a particular court record is one ‘traditionally kept secret,’ 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). Generally, if a party seeks to seal a judicial record, the party 

bears the burden of overcoming this presumption by articulating “compelling reasons supported 

Case 1:15-cv-01178-BAM Document 6 Filed 07/30/15 Page 1 of 3
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

by specific factual findings” to justify sealing the records at issue. Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 

1178. 

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2(d), a court Amay order that a filing be 

made under seal without redaction,@ and the Supreme Court has acknowledged that the decision 

to seal documents is Aone 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,@ Nixon v. 

Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 599, 98 S.Ct. 1306, 1312 (1978). Courts should 

consider Athe interests [of] the parties in light of the public interest and the duty of the courts.@ 

Hagestad v. Tragesser, 49 F.3d 1430, 1434 (9th Cir. 1995) (quoting Nixon, 435 U.S. at 602). 

The party opposing disclosure has the burden of proving “good cause.” See In re Roman 

Catholic Archbishop of Portland, 661 F.3d 417, 424 (9th Cir. 2011) (citation omitted).

“Under the ‘compelling reasons’ standard, a district court must weigh ‘relevant factors,’ 

base its decision ‘on a compelling reason,’ and ‘articulate the factual basis for its ruling, 

without relying on hypothesis or conjecture.’” Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass'n, 605 F.3d 665, 

679 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Hagestad, 49 F.3d at 1434). In general, when “‘court files might 

have become a vehicle for improper purposes' such as the use of records to gratify private spite, 

promote public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets,” there are 

“compelling reasons” sufficient to outweigh the public's interest in disclosure. Kamekana, 447 

F.3d at 1179 (internal citations and alterations omitted). However, “[t]he mere fact that the 

production of records may lead to a litigant's embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to 

further litigation will not, without more, compel the court to seal its records.” Id. (citing Foltz ,

331 F.3d at 1136. 

Plaintiff requests the court to seal the Complaint and its exhibits, and to redact any 

mention of his California Youth Authority (CYA) juvenile file. Plaintiff alleges that the 

defendants in this case, who are prison officials at Corcoran State Prison where Plaintiff is 

presently incarcerated, violated his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights and California 

Welfare and Institution Codes 827 and 828 by incorporating by reference his CYA juvenile 

master file’s disciplinary history. 

Case 1:15-cv-01178-BAM Document 6 Filed 07/30/15 Page 2 of 3
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

Discussion

Plaintiff’s Complaint, as submitted to the court, consists of only seven pages, with no 

exhibits. (ECF No. 1.) The Complaint appears to be incomplete, as it directs the court to “see 

pages 8 through 17 at paragraphs 1 through 57 and Exhibit A and B” for Plaintiff’s supporting 

facts. (ECF No. 1 at 3 ¶IV.) There is no mention of Plaintiff’s CYA juvenile file in the 

Complaint as submitted, and Plaintiff has not shown good cause for the court to prohibit the 

mere acknowledgement in this case that Plaintiff has a CYA juvenile file. Therefore, the court 

finds no compelling reason to seal the Complaint at this stage of the proceedings, and 

Plaintiff’s motion shall be denied.

III. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to seal the 

Complaint is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 30, 2015 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01178-BAM Document 6 Filed 07/30/15 Page 3 of 3