Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00683/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00683-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1346t Tort Claim

---

1

17cv683-LAB (KSC)

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

K.C., a minor,

Plaintiff,

v.

MELANIE VEJMOLA, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 17cv683-LAB (KSC)

ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO 

FILE SECOND AMENDED 

COMPLAINT; AND

ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF 

TO RESPOND TO MOTION FOR 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

After the Court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim, Plaintiff 

filed a motion for leave to amend. Because the proposed amended complaint did 

not correct the defects in the dismissed complaint, the Court summarily denied 

that, but gave Plaintiff the opportunity to file a renewed ex parte motion for leave 

to amend. That motion (Docket no. 41) is fully briefed and is now pending.

Although the proposed amended complaint depends heavily on an agreement 

known as the Certified Child Care Agreement (“CCC Agreement”), the agreement 

is not attached. The proposed amended complaint says that the CCC Agreement 

is not attached because Defendants have deemed it confidential. (Docket no. 41-

1, at 7 n.1.) Instead, it says, “Plaintiff . . . will provide it for in camera review.” (Id.) 

No copy of the CCC Agreement was lodged with the Court. 

Case 3:17-cv-00683-LAB-NLS Document 50 Filed 02/05/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

17cv683-LAB (KSC)

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

Whether the Court could even consider an unfiled document in this situation 

is a thorny question. Ordinarily the Court would require a plaintiff to present 

compelling reasons before it would consider such a document, because doing so 

effectively amounts to sealing part of a complaint See Williams & Cochrane, LLP 

v. Quechan Tribe of Ft. Yuma Indian Reservation, 2017 WL 7362744, slip op. at 

*2 (S.D. Cal., Nov. 7, 2017) (discussing differing standards for sealing a complaint). 

But now Defendants have filed a motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff cannot 

avoid summary judgment by relying on mere allegations about the agreement and 

giving her opinion about its meaning and legal effect.

The summary judgment motion is directed alternatively at the first amended 

complaint, and at the proposed amended complaint. The first amended complaint, 

however, was already dismissed, and there is no pending complaint. In the 

interests of economy, the Court GRANTS the request for leave to file a second 

amended complaint while reserving on the question of whether it can withstand 

dismissal, which the parties’ briefing has addressed. The Clerk is directed to 

terminate this motion. (Docket no. 41.) Plaintiff shall promptly file her proposed 

amended complaint as the Second Amended Complaint. The motion for summary 

judgment will be deemed to apply to this complaint. The arguments raised in favor 

of or against leave to amend will be considered in connection with the summary 

judgment motion and need not be raised or addressed anew. Plaintiff must timely 

file her written opposition to the summary judgment motion, and her failure to do 

so will be construed as her consent to the motion’s being granted. See Civil Local 

Rule 7.1(f)(3)(c).

In view of Defendants’ arguments and evidence, it is apparent the SAC 

cannot survive dismissal based solely on its own conclusory allegations about the 

the meaning and legal effect of the CCC Agreement. In addition to addressing the 

rest of Defendants’ motion, Plaintiff’s opposition must also therefore either attach 

or incorporate all relevant portions of the Agreement that she relies on to establish 

Case 3:17-cv-00683-LAB-NLS Document 50 Filed 02/05/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

17cv683-LAB (KSC)

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

her claims. Among other things, she must show who the parties to the Agreement 

were. If she believes it cannot be filed, she should concurrently with her opposition 

file an ex parte motion for leave to file it under seal. Any such motion must satisfy 

the high standards for sealing documents attached to a dispositive motion. See 

Kamekana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1180 (9th Cir. 2006). Among 

other things, the motion must show why lesser measures (such as redaction) 

would not be sufficient, and must permit the Court to make the detailed findings it 

must make before approving the filing of such a document under seal. Because 

sealing impinges on the public’s right of access, the designation of a document as 

confidential by one or more parties, or even agreement among all parties, is not 

an adequate basis for sealing. See id. at 1179 (citing Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. 

Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1136 (9th Cir. 2003)) (holding that standards for sealing 

apply even to documents subject to a protective order). 

Because sealing is a generally disfavored and onerous procedure, however, 

the parties are encouraged to find an alternative solution. The parties are also 

reminded that the Court’s standing order requires submission of a joint statement 

of undisputed facts. See Standing Order in Civil Cases, & 4(e).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 5, 2019

Hon. Larry Alan Burns

Chief United States District Judge

Case 3:17-cv-00683-LAB-NLS Document 50 Filed 02/05/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3