Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_12-cv-00254/USCOURTS-cand-3_12-cv-00254-14/pdf.json

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

---

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

DIAMOND PLEASANTON ENTERPRISE, 

INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

THE CITY OF PLEASANTON, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 12-cv-00254-WHO 

ORDER DENYING NON-PARTY 

MOTION TO SEAL

Re: Dkt. No. 117

INTRODUCTION

Jenny Wolfes was a witness in the above-referenced action. My order granting 

Pleasanton’s motion for summary judgment references her deposition testimony. Wolfes now 

seeks to have her name “removed or suppressed from the case” because it was posted on 

leagle.com, a third-party website which provides case law from federal and state courts. Wolfes’s 

motion is DENIED because she has not demonstrated compelling reasons to seal her name from 

the public record.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Diamond Pleasanton Enterprise, Inc. challenged defendant City of Pleasanton’s 

conditional use permit requirements as unconstitutional prior restraints of protected speech when 

applied to bars and music and dance facilities. Dkt. No. 84. Pleasanton moved for summary 

judgment. Dkt. No. 87. In connection with its motion for summary judgment, Pleasanton cited to 

the transcript of the deposition of Wolfes, a former employee of Diamond. I granted Pleasanton’s 

motion for summary judgment on March 6, 2014.. Dkt. No. 108.

Wolfes, representing herself, has submitted a letter to the Court seeking to have her name 

sealed. She states:

Case 3:12-cv-00254-WHO Document 118 Filed 01/05/15 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

I am seeking relief in the above case to have my name Jenny 

Wolfes removed or suppressed from the case. I am a third party in 

the case not a plaintiff nor defendant and leagle.com has this case 

popping up directly under my name on the search engines which is 

damaging to my professional career. 

Dkt. No. 117.

LEGAL STANDARD

Courts have recognized that the public has a “general right to inspect and copy public 

records and documents, including judicial records and documents.” Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, 

Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978). “Unless a particular court record is one ‘traditionally kept 

secret,’ a ‘strong presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.” Kamakana v. City and 

Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (citation omitted). An individual seeking 

to seal a dispositive motion must do more than show good cause for sealing the documents; she 

must articulate “compelling reasons” in favor of sealing. Id. at 1178–180.

“In general, ‘compelling reasons’ sufficient to outweigh the public’s interest in disclosure 

and justify sealing court records exist when such ‘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.” Id. at 1179 (quoting Nixon, 435 U.S. at 

598).

DISCUSSION

The only document on leagle.com connecting Wolfes to this case is my order granting 

summary judgment for Pleasanton, filed at docket number 108. Wolfes states that this is 

“damaging to my professional career,” but does not explain how. Dkt. No. 117. Conclusory 

allegations of professional harm do not outweigh the public’s interest in disclosure. See, e.g.,

Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1182. Having reviewed the order, which identifies differences between 

her testimony and that of another witness, I can imagine no compelling reason to seal her name

that would be sufficient to override the significant public interest in access to judicial proceedings. 

Absent extraordinary circumstances, witnesses do not testify anonymously under our system of 

Case 3:12-cv-00254-WHO Document 118 Filed 01/05/15 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

laws. This is not such an extraordinary circumstance. Wolfes’s motion to seal is DENIED.

1

 

CONCLUSION

Wolfes’s motion to seal is DENIED WITH PREJUDICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 5, 2015

______________________________________

WILLIAM H. ORRICK

United States District Judge

 

1

It is worth noting that sealing Wolfes’s name from the public docket maintained by the Court 

would not necessarily have the impact she seeks: leagle.com is not affiliated with the Court, and 

Wolfes would have to prevail in a separate action against leagle.com to have her name removed 

from the order already posted by leagle.com. Wolfes has not explained why such an action would 

have merit. 

Case 3:12-cv-00254-WHO Document 118 Filed 01/05/15 Page 3 of 3