Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-00903/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-00903-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983pr Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1 

14cv903-JAH-MDD 

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

DANIEL ACEDO, 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

ERNESTO PINEDO, et al., 

 Defendants. 

Case No.: 14cv903-JAH-MDD 

ORDER RE PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION TO SEAL PORTIONS 

OF THE RECORD 

[ECF NO. 127]

On May 25, 2016, Plaintiff filed this Motion to Seal Portions of the 

Record. (ECF No. 127). Plaintiff identifies the documents he seeks to 

redact or seal by their exhibit designation, but Plaintiff does not 

identify the docket number and does not identify which motion these 

documents pertain to. Nevertheless, the Court has reviewed the docket 

and, with the exceptions noted below, has discerned that Plaintiff is 

referring to the following documents and information: 

 “Exhibit C2 sub-exhibits A, B, C, D” – unable to identify; 

 “Exhibit A call for service pp. 2 the ID Number, Age, DOB” – 

ECF No. 116-16 at 6 (driver’s license number, age, DOB); 

Case 3:14-cv-00903-JAH-MDD Document 200 Filed 10/12/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2 

14cv903-JAH-MDD 

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

 “Exhibit B Castro’s report pp. 2 the ID Number, Social 

Security Number, Other ID Numbers and DOB” – ECF No. 

116-16 at 12 (driver’s license number, social security 

number, CII Number, FBI No., DOB); 

 “Exhibit C Pinedo’s report should be sealed because it may 

be used for public scandal” – ECF No. 116-16 at 20; 

 “Exhibit N the 33 photo’s [sic]” – ECF No. 116-16 at 117-157 

(pictures taken at the trolley station, of the car, of the knife); 

 Declarations “attached to the oppossition [sic]” – unable to 

identify. 

Plaintiff urges sealing/redaction on the grounds that (1) some of 

these exhibits reveal his private identification numbers, and (2) the 

“investigatory files attached to the opposition for MSJ be sealed because 

the attorney’s [sic] of the City of Chula Vista release [sic] those record’s 

[sic] for gratifying private spite and the investigatory files may create 

public scandal and will likely cause that libelous statements with 

pictures will circulate a prime example is Chris Brown.” Plaintiff 

explains that he is not yet as popular as Chris Brown, but does plan on 

writing more books like his unpublished “The Ultimate Guide to 

Success and Profit,” and argues these filings prejudice his “persona.” 

Judicial records are presumptively open to public inspection. 

Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010); 

Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 

2006); Phillips v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1213 (9th Cir. 

2002). This includes pleadings filed with the court and discovery 

Case 3:14-cv-00903-JAH-MDD Document 200 Filed 10/12/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3 

14cv903-JAH-MDD 

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

material attached to those pleadings. Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto 

Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1134 (9th Cir. 2003). 

Due to the common law “right to inspect and copy public records 

and documents, including judicial records and documents,” a party 

moving to seal judicial records must show that “compelling reasons 

supported by specific factual findings . . . outweigh the general history 

of access and the public policies favoring disclosure.” Kamakana, 447 

F.3d at 1178-79. 

The Court agrees with Plaintiff that his social security number 

should be redacted from Exhibit B and his birth date should be redacted 

from Exhibits A and B. FED. R. CIV. P. 5.2(a) (parties are required to 

redact social security numbers and birth dates from electronic filings). 

Except for those redactions, Plaintiff’s requests to seal are “based 

on flimsy generic explanations.” Open Text S.A. v. Box, Inc., No. 13-cv04910-JD, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 177484, at *7 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 26, 

2014). Compelling reasons is a strict standard, requiring the movant to 

show specific, individualized reasons for sealing the material, “without 

relying on hypothesis or conjecture.” See Pintos, 605 F.3d at 679. Rule 

5.2 does not require redaction of the other types of information, ranging 

from driver’s license and FBI numbers, to pictures taken in public 

spaces, to sworn declarations describing the events at issue. Nor does 

Plaintiff offer more than hypothesis or conjecture for why exposing any 

of this material to the public will lead to public scandal or how it 

gratifies private spite or constitutes libel. 

Case 3:14-cv-00903-JAH-MDD Document 200 Filed 10/12/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4 

14cv903-JAH-MDD 

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

The Court finds Plaintiff has not satisfied his burden to show 

compelling reasons for redaction or sealing of any of the material except 

for his birth date and social security number. Plaintiff’s motion is 

GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Accordingly, the Clerk 

SHALL replace the image of ECF No. 116-16 with a new version of the 

image that redacts Plaintiff’s social security number from Exhibit B and 

his birth date from Exhibits A and B. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: October 12, 2016 

Case 3:14-cv-00903-JAH-MDD Document 200 Filed 10/12/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4