Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01819/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01819-21/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Unseal and Modify the Protective 

Order to allow public access to the Second Amended Complaint and the related motions and 

supporting exhibits. (Doc. 113). The hearing, initially scheduled for May 20, 2016, was 

continued to June 17, 2016 at Defendants’ request. (Docs. 112, 116). On June 8, 2016, Defendants 

filed an opposition to the Motion to which Plaintiff replied on June 14, 2016. (Docs. 123, 129, 

133). Due to a calendar conflict, the Court conducted the hearing on the Motion on June 24, 2016. 

(Docs. 125, 135).1 Counsel Panos Lagos and Charles Piccuta appeared by telephone on behalf of 

Plaintiff. Counsel James Weakley and Brande Gustafson appeared in person on behalf of 

 

1 At the hearing, Defendants moved to close court proceedings to the general public and any person or 

representative of the media based on the presentation of confidential evidence. Defendants’ motion to seal the 

courtroom was DENIED for the reasons stated on the record.

GEORGE MICHAEL MACIAS, JR.,

Plaintiff,

v.

STEVE CLEAVER, CESAR GONZALEZ, 

ERIC TAIFANE, ANGEL VELASQUEZ, 

THE CITY OF CLOVIS and DOES 1-10, 

inclusive,

Defendants.

CASE NO. 1:13-cv-01819-BAM 

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION TO UNSEAL AND MODIFY 

THE PROTECTIVE ORDER 

(Doc. 113)

Case 1:13-cv-01819-BAM Document 142 Filed 06/30/16 Page 1 of 13
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

2

Defendants. Having considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers, and the entire file, 

Plaintiff’s Motion to Unseal and Modify the Protective Order is GRANTED.

BACKGROUND

A. Introduction 

Plaintiff seeks to unseal a number of motions and exhibits stemming from Plaintiff’s 

Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint. The Second Amended Complaint along 

with the related motions and supporting exhibits describe two Internal Affairs Investigations #13-

06 and #14-02 which investigated allegations of work related misconduct by Defendant Officer 

Cleaver. These Internal Affairs Investigations were originally designated as confidential under the 

parties’ protective order entered on November 20, 2015. (Doc. 70). 

Filed under seal are documents filed in support of and in opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to 

Amend: (1) Motion for Leave to file a Second Amended Complaint (“Motion to Amend”) (Doc. 

84); (2) Proposed Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 84-1); (3) Declaration In Support of the 

Motion to Amend (Doc. 84-2); (4) Defendant’s Opposition to the Motion to Amend (Doc. 92); (5)

Plaintiff’s Reply in Support of the Motion to Amend (Doc. 93); and (6) the Second Amended 

Complaint (Docs. 99, 100). Also filed under seal are six supporting exhibits including: (1) 

Internal Affairs Investigation #13-06; (2) Internal Affairs Investigation #14-02; (3) the 

Disciplinary Review Board Memorandum re: IA Investigation #14-02; (4) Notice of the 

Disciplinary Board’s Decision; (5) Officer Cleaver’s Letter of Resignation; and (6) the Conclusion 

of I.A. Investigation #14-02 (“Internal Affairs Documents”). See Declaration of Charles Tony 

Piccuta (“Piccuta Decl.”), Doc. 84-2, Exhs. 1-6 at Doc. 135. 

B. The Protective Order in this Case 

During the discovery phase of the underlying action, Defendants refused to produce the 

Internal Affairs Documents along with 2,000 other pages of discovery it deemed private or 

confidential without a protective order prohibiting disclosure of that information beyond the 

purposes of this litigation. Plaintiff, however, refused to stipulate to a protective order. (Doc. 54). 

As a result, on October 16, 2015, Defendants moved for an order from the Court requiring that 

three categories of documents from the Clovis Police Department—(1) the individual defendant 

Case 1:13-cv-01819-BAM Document 142 Filed 06/30/16 Page 2 of 13
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

3

officers’ personnel files; (2) policies and procedures; and (3) training materials—be produced 

subject to a protective order. See Declaration of Brande Gustafson (“Gustafson Decl.”) ¶ 29-31, 

Doc. 61. The proposed documents allegedly falling within the scope of the Protective Order were 

not submitted for the Court’s review. 

After considering the parties’ written and oral arguments and balancing the public and 

private interests to determine whether a protective order was necessary, Defendants’ motion for a 

protective order was granted. (Doc. 67 at 12). The Court approved the protective order, in part, to 

facilitate the parties’ discovery exchanges but also noted that a protective order is warranted “in 

light of the institutional concerns articulated by Defendants and the risks that the indiscriminate 

public disclosure poses to police department operations and officer safety.” Macias v. City of 

Clovis, 1:13-CV-01819-BAM, 2015 WL 7282841, at *8 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 18, 2015).

On November 20, 2015, the Court entered a blanket protective order. Protective Order, 

Doc. 70. The scope of the protective order included the Clovis Police Department’s policies and 

procedures adopted at the time of Plaintiff’s arrest on September 30, 2012; Clovis Police 

Department’s training materials in use at the time of Plaintiff’s arrest on September 30, 2012; and 

personnel files including citizen complaints, accident review boards, and internal investigations 

relating to Defendant Officers Steve Cleaver, Cesar Gonzalez, Eric Taifane, Angel Velasquez, and 

other non-defendant officers. Protective Order ¶ 4.1(a). The Protective Order stated that those

documents are “designated as confidential and the information contained therein shall be used 

solely in connection with this litigation, including appeals, and not for any other purpose, 

including other litigation.” Protective Order ¶ 4.2. 

The scope of the protective order is provisional and pursuant to its terms, a party may seek 

an order from the Court permitting disclosure of information beyond the terms of the protective 

order. Protective Order ¶ 5.2 (“unless the Court orders otherwise, confidential documents and the 

information contained therein may be disclosed only to the following persons...”). The protective 

order also states that “the protections conferred by [the Protective Order] do not cover” 

information that “becomes part of the public domain after its disclosure to Plaintiff as a result of 

publication not involving a violation of this Order.” Protective Order ¶ 2. In other words, an 

Case 1:13-cv-01819-BAM Document 142 Filed 06/30/16 Page 3 of 13
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

4

order from the Court unsealing documents for public view removes those documents from the 

confidentiality provisions of the protective order. 

In the instant motion, Plaintiff seeks to unseal or otherwise modify the Protective Order 

with respect to the briefing on the Motion to Amend and the Internal Affairs Documents. 

Plaintiff does not seek to modify the Protective Order with respect to any other documents. 

C. Factual and Procedural History

Plaintiff is proceeding in this civil rights action against the City of Clovis (“the City”) and 

Officers Cleaver, Gonzalez, Taifane, and Velasquez (‘individual defendant officers”) on claims for 

alleged unlawful arrest, excessive force, and malicious prosecution. Second Amended Complaint 

(“SAC”), Doc. 103. According to the SAC, Plaintiff’s claims arise out of a traffic stop, which 

ultimately led to Plaintiff’s arrest for a violation of California Penal Code § 148(a)(1)—resisting, 

delaying or obstructing a police officer—and the impound of his motorcycle on September 30, 

2012. On March 10, 2014, Plaintiff was found not guilty of the criminal charge of resisting arrest. 

SAC at ¶ 42. 

Following his arrest, Plaintiff subsequently initiated this federal civil rights action on 

November 11, 2013. (Doc. 1). An initial scheduling conference Order was issued on December 1, 

2014, setting forth the discovery and trial schedule for the case. (Doc. 35). Shortly after discovery 

was exchanged subject to the protective order, Plaintiff moved for leave to file a Second Amended 

Complaint to include claims for malicious prosecution and First Amendment retaliation. (Doc. 

84). The moving papers included the Internal Affairs Documents which were filed under seal. 

(Docs. 84, 84-2, 135). After a review of the motion and supporting exhibits, the Court granted 

Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint and the Second Amended 

Complaint was directed to be filed by the Clerk under seal. (Doc. 96). This motion to unseal 

followed. 

///

///

///

///

Case 1:13-cv-01819-BAM Document 142 Filed 06/30/16 Page 4 of 13
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

5

I. Motion to Unseal

LEGAL STANDARD

“Historically, courts have ‘recognize[d] a general right to inspect and copy public records 

and documents, including judicial records and documents.” Oliner v. Kontrabecki, 745 F.3d 1024, 

1025 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978)). 

“[J]udicial records are public documents almost by definition, and the public is entitled to access 

by default.” Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1180-81 (9th Cir. 2006). This 

“federal common law right of access” to court documents generally extends to “all information 

filed with the court,” and “creates a strong presumption in favor of access to judicial documents 

which can be overcome only by showing sufficiently important countervailing interests.” Phillips 

ex. Rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1212 (9th Cir. 2002) (citations and 

quotation marks omitted). 

ANALYSIS

A. Whether the Compelling Reason Standard Applies

The Court must first determine the appropriate standard for sealing documents. Two 

standards govern whether documents should be sealed: a “compelling reasons” standard, which 

applies to dispositive motions, and a “good cause” standard, which applies to non-dispositive 

discovery type motions. Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179; see also Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 

F.3d 665, 677 (9th Cir. 2010). The Ninth Circuit recently clarified, however, that the key in 

determining which standard to apply is not whether the proposed sealed documents accompany a 

dispositive or non-dispositive motion. Center for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Group, LLC, 809 F.3d 

1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2016), petition for cert. filed - S.Ct.-, (U.S. Mar. 24, 2016) (15-1211). 

“Rather, public access will turn on whether the motion is more than tangentially related to the 

merits of a case.” Id.

Defendants argue that the “good cause” standard applies because Plaintiff’s prior Motion 

to Amend is non-dipositive as it neither resolved the case on its merits nor served as a substitute 

for a trial. See In re Nat’l Sec. Agency Telecom. Records Litig., No. MDL 06-1791 VRW, 2007 

WL 549854, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 20, 2007) (A motion is considered “non-dispositive” where “it 

Case 1:13-cv-01819-BAM Document 142 Filed 06/30/16 Page 5 of 13
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

6

neither resolves a case on the merits nor serves as a substitute for trial). Plaintiff counters that the 

“compelling reasons” standard for sealing should apply because the Motion to Amend was 

dispositive of his underlying malicious prosecution claim. (Doc. 129 at 6). Plaintiff argues had he

been denied leave to amend “his claim for malicious prosecution would have been forever barred.” 

(Doc. 129 at 6). 

Regardless of whether Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend is considered technically

nondispositive, there is little doubt that the Motion to Amend is directly related to the underlying 

claims in this case. Center for Auto Safety, LLC, 809 F.3d at 1096. Indeed, the Court recognized 

the significance of Plaintiff’s newly added malicious prosecution claim when analyzing the 

Motion to Amend, stating that the Court was “persuaded that the interests of justice are served by 

granting the motion because Plaintiff’s amendment adds a claim that could be barred if not filed in 

this litigation.” (Doc. 97 at 12). Therefore, under the test most recently articulated by Center for 

Auto Safety, the Motion to Amend here involves issues that are directly central to the case and 

therefore “more than tangentially related to the merits of the case.” Accordingly, the Court finds 

that it must apply the compelling reasons standard.2See, e.g., Whitecryption Corp. v. Arxan 

Techs., Inc., 2016 U.S. Dist. Lexis 31108, *3 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 9, 2016) (discussing the appropriate 

sealing standard for documents related to a motion to amend and holding that “a motion to file an 

amended complaint is more than tangentially related to the underlying cause of action and 

therefore Arxan’s motion is subject to the compelling reasons standard”). Given the Motion to 

Amend’s pivotal role in Plaintiff’s overall suit, nothing less than compelling reasons will justify 

sealing the Internal Affairs Documents. 

 

2 The parties additionally dispute whether the test outlined in Center for Auto Safety—a panel decision—is 

reliable authority. Other Ninth Circuit precedent states that the test of whether a document should be sealed depends 

on whether the document is dispositive or non-dispositive, and this precedent has not been overruled. See Miller v. 

Gammie, 335 F.3d 889, 899 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). Customarily, three-judge panels of the court are bound by a 

prior published Ninth Circuit decision and cannot reconsider a decided issue unless an en banc decision, a Supreme 

Court decision or subsequent legislation undermines its precedential value. See Ritchie v. United States, 733 F.3d 

871, 877–878 (9th Cir. 2013). However, this Court need not reach the question of whether the dispositive/nondispositive analysis or the “tangentially related” analysis should apply. Even if the Court were to forgo reliance on the

panel decision in Center for Auto Safety—as Defendants suggest—the Ninth Circuit has already indicated that 

motions to amend may be considered dispositive. Bastidas v. Chappell, 791 F.3d 1155 (9th Cir. 2015) (the dispositive 

nature of a magistrate judge’s decision on a motion to amend can turn on the outcome). Indeed, this Court has already 

determined the dispositive nature of Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend. (Doc. 97.) Therefore, Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend 

in this case is a dispositive motion.

Case 1:13-cv-01819-BAM Document 142 Filed 06/30/16 Page 6 of 13
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

7

B. Whether the “Compelling Reasons” Standard is Met

With respect to the compelling reasons standard, the Ninth Circuit has stated that 

compelling reasons justifying the sealing of court records generally 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.” Kamakana, 

447 F.3d at 1179 (quoting Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598). 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. 

Defendants offer that several compelling reasons exist to keep the Internal Affairs 

Documents under seal. First, Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s use of the “unrelated Internal 

Affairs documents is for the [primary] purpose of attacking Officer Cleaver’s character and 

turning him into a pariah.” (Doc. 133 at 8). This, Defendants claim, “is an improper purpose 

which is a sufficiently compelling reason to warrant denial of Plaintiff’s motion to unseal.” (Doc. 

133 at 8). Defendants further explain that unsealing the Internal Affairs investigations will only 

serve as a vehicle to promote public scandal and satisfy the private spite that Plaintiff holds 

against Defendants: the attempt to unseal here is for the purpose of “making Officer Cleaver look 

bad;” “Plaintiff’s spite for Officer Cleaver is further evident from the implication in Plaintiff’s 

moving papers that Officer Cleaver should not be” currently employed elsewhere at a private 

company. (Doc. 133 at 8). 

This argument of purported spite fails to establish a sufficient basis for maintaining the 

Internal Affairs Documents under seal. These documents were created as a result of official action 

by the City of Clovis to investigate the official conduct of one of its officers. None of the Internal 

Investigation Documents involve personal actions unrelated to official functions, decisions and 

duties of the officers. While Defendants allege that Plaintiff may use these records to satisfy a 

private spite, it is hardly private spite, promotion of public scandal, or libelous, to contend that 

Defendant engaged in misconduct during the scope of his official duties, and to submit to the 

Court documented instances of alleged misconduct in support of that argument. The public’s

interest in the conduct of its officers cannot be undermined by calling it a desire for public 

Case 1:13-cv-01819-BAM Document 142 Filed 06/30/16 Page 7 of 13
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

8

spectacle, or a form of “private spite.”

Based on the strong presumption of public access to judicial records and the public’s 

strong interest in the conduct of officers, this Court must refuse requests to engage in damage 

control on behalf of the Defendants. Here, where the case involves allegations of police 

misconduct, the public has a vested interest “in assessing the truthfulness of allegations of official 

misconduct, and whether agencies that are responsible for investigating and adjudicating 

complaints of misconduct have acted properly and wisely.” See Welsh v. City & County of San 

Francisco, 887 F. Supp. 1293, 1302 (N.D. Cal. 1995). “Misconduct by individual officers, 

incompetent internal investigations, or questionable supervisory practices must be exposed if they 

exist.” Id. (quoting Skibo v. City of New York, 109 F.R.D. 58, 61 (E.D.N.Y. 1985) (ordering 

disclosure of files concerning complaints against police officers made to civilian complaint review 

board)). 

The Court disagrees that Plaintiff’s purported intent to “advertise or publicize [the] Internal 

Affairs Investigations #13-06 and #14-02 in order to locate ‘favorable witnesses’” (Doc. 133 at 

11) qualifies as an “improper purpose” under Ninth Circuit precedent. The Ninth Circuit has 

explicitly stated that “exposure to further litigation” is not a compelling reason to overcome the 

presumption of public access to court records. Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178. Moreover, the 

publication of details surrounding Plaintiff’s case, though arguably unflattering to Defendants, 

does not in and of itself serve to gratify a private spite. To the contrary, the documents here are not 

scandalous or tawdry but involve incidents that were, in large part, sustained by Defendants’ own 

investigators. The Clovis Police Department conducted a thorough investigation and 

recommended disciplinary action based on its findings. Therefore, there is little concern that the 

documents are utterly meritless serving purely to circulate libelous or other baseless statements. 

Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179. The City did precisely what was required of it; conducted an 

extensive and thorough investigation and concluded disciplinary action was warranted for Officer 

Cleaver’s conduct. “That the production of records may lead to a litigant’s embarrassment or 

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

State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1136 (9th Cir. 2003)). 

Case 1:13-cv-01819-BAM Document 142 Filed 06/30/16 Page 8 of 13
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

9

Defendants next accuse Plaintiff of “bootstrapping” information from “unrelated Internal 

Affairs investigation reports” in an effort to bolster his malicious prosecution claim. (Doc. 133 at 

8). Defendants argue, citing Pryor v. City of Clearlake, No. 11-0954 CW, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 

93917, 2012 WL 2711032 (N.D. Cal. July 6, 2012) (“Pryor I”) and Pryor v. City of Clearlake, No. 

11-0954 CW, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112246, 2012 WL 3276992 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 9, 2012) 

(“Pryor II”), that since the other investigations involve materially different facts than those alleged 

by Plaintiff, Plaintiff does not need the Internal Affairs Documents disclosed in order to properly 

litigate his case. (Doc. 133 at 9). Defendants see no correlation between the various internal 

affairs investigations that concluded that Officer Cleaver repeatedly made material 

misrepresentations in the course of his duties and Plaintiff’s claim of malicious prosecution. 

Instead, Defendants argue that Officer Cleaver’s previous behavior is more akin to an officer who 

allegedly lied about work that he never completed in order to make cases go away, not to facilitate 

prosecution of an individual. (Doc. 133 at 10). 

Defendants’ reliance on Pryor I and II is misplaced. In Pryor II, and its predecessor 

opinion, a §1983 action, the Court sealed information relating to an Internal Affairs investigation 

of an unrelated incident (failure to follow CPD policies related to confidentiality) because an 

investigation determined the incident was unfounded and it was lacking in probative value. Pryor 

II, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112246, 2012 WL 3276992 at *3. In so holding, the Court repeatedly 

recognized “that the lack of relevance of the sensitive information is not dispositive as to whether 

a sealing order is warranted, but underscores the privacy interest in sealing such information.” Id.

at *4. However, the Court declined to seal a log of police officers who had watched an ethics 

training video because the Plaintiff’s lawsuit included a Monell claim against the city for failure to 

adequately train its officers. See 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112246, [WL] at *4. Thus, the Pryor

court looked both at whether the party requesting sealing could establish a compelling reason for 

sealing and whether the documents were probative to the subject matter of the underlying lawsuit. 

See also Hunter v. City & County of San Francisco, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 74711, 2013 WL 

2319064, at *9 (N.D. Cal. May 28, 2013) (unsealing prior unsustained excessive force complaints 

against one of the Deputy defendants).

Case 1:13-cv-01819-BAM Document 142 Filed 06/30/16 Page 9 of 13
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

10

Here, the sealed Internal Affairs Documents are probative of Plaintiff’s malicious 

prosecution claim—an observation that the Court has already made, which it will revisit only 

briefly here.

3

In granting the Motion to Amend, the Court determined that the conduct alleged by 

Plaintiff and supported by the Internal Affairs Documents was pivotal to Plaintiff’s malicious 

prosecution claim. (Doc. 97 at 12). Unlike in Pryor, the charges in the Internal Affairs 

Documents were found sufficiently meritorious to recommend the termination of Officer Cleaver. 

Compare Pryor, 2012 WL 3276992, *3 (The investigator assigned to review the complaint 

concluded that complaint was unfounded.) In addition, the allegations in the Internal Affairs 

Documents do not involve immaterial, unrelated matters occurring in Defendant’s personal 

capacity such as were involved in Pryor II.

4

Pryor II, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112246, 2012 WL 

3276992 at *6 (internal affairs investigation of a complaint lodged against defendant related to a 

party that defendant hosted at his home was found not probative of Plaintiff’s claims). Rather, as 

expressed at the hearing, the conduct alleged here occurred in the scope of Defendant’s official 

duties while he was acting under the color of law. At issue here, and at issue in the internal affairs 

investigations, is how the officer conducted himself as an officer and how he performed specific 

duties, such as preparing police reports, and including whether he may have abused his authority. 

Official conduct and abuse of authority are central to Plaintiff’s allegations in this case. Thus, the 

claims of falsified police reports are probative and relevant to Plaintiff’s claim of malicious 

prosecution.

5

 

Defendants remaining arguments—that the documents contain statements by Officer 

Cleaver and “other non-defendant officers and employees who [were] assured that their statements

 

3 The Court also notes, without deciding, that the Internal Affairs Documents may be relevant to other claims 

in this case. Plaintiff’s other claims allege that Plaintiff took inappropriate and constitutionally violative actions under 

color of law, and the Internal Affairs Documents investigate instances of Plaintiff’s conduct under color of law.

4 The Court also notes that the facts of Pryor are distinguishable. In Pryor, the court sealed various police 

documents including two citizen’s complaints and two internal affairs reports. 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112246, 2012 

WL 3276992, at *2-3. The complaints contained the complainants’ date of birth and personal contact information. 

Investigations of the citizen’s complaints concluded that the allegations were unsubstantiated. The internal affairs 

reports were “not probative of Plaintiff’s claims” and “irrelevant” to resolve the defendants’ motion for summary 

judgment. Pryor is not binding on this Court, nor persuasive that the Internal Affairs Documents should remain under 

seal. 

5 The Court is not ruling on, and does intend this discussion to be construed as a ruling upon, the admissibility 

of the evidence contained in the Internal Affairs Documents. Admissibility at trial is an issue for another day. 

Case 1:13-cv-01819-BAM Document 142 Filed 06/30/16 Page 10 of 13
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

11

[would] remain confidential”—are reasons, at best, to make limited redactions, but do not justify

sealing entire documents. (Doc. 133 at 10). Defendants imply that should the Internal Affairs 

Documents be unsealed, complaining citizens and other officers may not provide information in 

the future. Because this would thwart complete and proper investigations, Defendants argue, this 

is a compelling reason to seal the Internal Affairs Documents. (Doc. 60-1 at 19). 

This type of conclusory assertion does not satisfy the “compelling reasons” standard. See 

Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1182 (rejecting arguments that production would, amongst other things, 

hinder CIU’s future operations with other agencies, endanger informants’ lives, and cast HPD 

officers in a false light). Moreover, contrary to Defendants’ assertions otherwise, courts have 

recognized that victims, witnesses, and other officers may be more likely to participate in 

investigations or discipline proceedings if they believe their reports of misconduct will be 

thoroughly and fairly investigated. See, e.g., Kelly v. City of San Jose, 114 F.R.D. 653, 664-66 

(N.D. Cal. 1987) (noting that officers are more likely to be forthcoming in an investigation if they 

know the public will gain access to the documents). Weighing the public interest involved against 

the individual privacy concerns, the Court finds that limited redactions will sufficiently protect the 

privacy interests of all involved. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2 (requires redaction of financial account 

information, social security numbers, and other personal information). The redactions should 

include third party address, date of birth, social security number, and driver’s license information.6

Lastly, to the extent that Defendants rely on the protective order as a reason to maintain the 

Internal Affairs Documents under seal, the fact that a Court has entered a protective order and that 

a party has designated a document as confidential pursuant to that protective order does not, 

standing alone, establish sufficient grounds to maintain a filed document under seal. See Beckman 

Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992); see also Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1133. 

In sum, Defendants’ arguments for sealing the Internal Affairs Documents fail to 

demonstrate compelling reasons that outweigh the public’s access to judicial documents or show 

 

6 The Court does not find that law enforcement identities should be redacted. An officer who is being 

interviewed during an internal investigation, or who is conducting such a probe, knows that what he says or writes 

could lead to criminal prosecution of other officers or to their termination from the force. Kelly v. City of San Jose, 

114 F.R.D. 653, 665 (N.D. Cal. 1987). However, for safety considerations, an officer’s home address, date of birth, 

social security number, and driver’s license number should be redacted. 

Case 1:13-cv-01819-BAM Document 142 Filed 06/30/16 Page 11 of 13
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

12

that specific prejudice or harm will result from public disclosure of the evidence this Court relied 

on in determining whether Plaintiff could amend his complaint. Defendants did not provide any 

specific facts to meet their burden to show compelling reasons sufficient to overcome the 

presumption of public access. Accordingly, the Court will unseal the Internal Affairs Documents, 

subject to limited privacy redactions, and will also unseal the related motions. 

II. Motion to Modify the Protective Order 

A district court has the power to modify or lift a protective order that it has entered. 

Empire Blue Cross & Blue Shield v. Janet Greeson’s A Place for Us, Inc., 62 F.3d 1217, 1219 (9th 

Cir. 1995). The issue is left to the sound discretion of the trial court. See, e.g., In re Coordinated 

Pretrial Proceedings in Petroleum Products Antitrust Litigation, 101 F.R.D. 34, 40-41 (C.D. Cal. 

1984) (request to modify a protective order reviewed for abuse of discretion).

In this instance, the Court has found that the Internal Affairs Documents and the related 

motions should be unsealed. Therefore, pursuant to the terms of the protective order, these 

documents no longer fall within the scope of the protective order as the documents are now 

available as part of the public domain. Protective Order ¶ 2(a). Plaintiff’s Motion to Modify the 

Protective Order is GRANTED.

CONCLUSION 

For the reasons explained, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion to Unseal and Motion to 

Modify the Protective Order. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

1. The Protective Order entered on November 20, 2015 is hereby modified to permit

the UNSEALING of Internal Affairs Investigations #13-06 and #14-02; 

2. Within twenty-one (21) days of service of this order, the parties shall meet and 

confer and perform any necessary redactions and re-file unsealed versions of:

a. Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend Based Upon Newly Discovered 

Evidence (“Motion to Amend”) (Doc. 84); 

b. the exhibits attached to the Declaration In Support of the Motion to Amend 

(Doc. 135);

c. the Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion 

Case 1:13-cv-01819-BAM Document 142 Filed 06/30/16 Page 12 of 13
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

13

to Unseal Judicial Filings and Modify Protective Order (Doc. 114-1); 

3. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to unseal the following documents in their 

entirety: 

a. Proposed Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 84-1); 

b. Declaration of Charles Tony Piccuta in Support of Motion for Leave to File 

a Second Amended Complaint Based on Newly Discovered Evidence (Doc. 84-2);

c. Plaintiff’s Reply in Support of the Motion to Amend (Doc. 92);

d. Defendant’s Opposition to the Motion to Amend (Doc. 93); 

e. The Second Amended Complaint filed on March 29, 2016 (Docs. 99, 100); 

f. Notice of Motion and Motion to Unseal Judicial Filings and Modify 

Protective Order (Doc. 114); 

g. Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Unseal Judicial Filings and 

Modify Protective Order (Doc. 133); 

h. Plaintiff’s Reply in Support of Motion to Unseal Judicial Filings and 

Modify Protective Order (Doc. 130); 

i. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiff’s 

Second Amended Complaint; (Doc. 141); 

j. Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and Motion to 

Strike Portions of Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 121); 

k. Defendants’ Reply to Plaintiff’s Opposition to their Motion to Dismiss and 

Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 132).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 30, 2016 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-01819-BAM Document 142 Filed 06/30/16 Page 13 of 13