Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03808/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03808-32/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KAREN MOE HUMPHREYS,

Plaintiff,

 v.

REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF

CALIFORNIA, et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C-04-03808 SI (EDL)

ORDER DENYING IN PART AND

DEFERRING RULING IN PART

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO

MAINTAIN CONFIDENTIALITY OF

CERTAIN PRODUCED DOCUMENTS

AND DEPOSITION TESTIMONY AND

ORDERING DOCUMENTS REDACTED

In this employment discrimination action brought by Plaintiff Karen Moe Humphreys against

Defendants Regents of the University of California, et al., Defendants have moved to maintain

confidentiality of over one thousand pages of documents produced to Plaintiff during discovery and

deposition testimony. This is not the first time that Defendants have sought a confidentiality

designation for a large number of documents. To the contrary, Defendants’ prior designation of

documents as confidential, Judge Illston observed that: “Defendants appear to have improperly

designated a large number of documents as confidential . . . [which] places an enormous burden on

both the parties, and through the overuse of sealed filings, on the court.” Apr. 3, 2006 Order Den.

Pl.’s Mot. to Vacate Am. Stipulated Protective Order at 1:16-18. Subsequently, Judge Illston found

that Defendants categorically marked a “vast quantity of documents” as confidential, including

18,162 pages of emails, public filings such as a state court complaint, and publicly available

documents such as newspaper articles, and concluded that “for the vast majority of documents they

have designated as confidential, Defendants have provided no justification whatsoever to defend

their designations.” May 23, 2006 Order Granting Mot. to Vacate Protective Order at 2:3-8; 2:21-

23; 3:28-4:1. Judge Illston concluded that: “All documents produced in this litigation will lose their

Case 3:04-cv-03808-SI Document 462 Filed 08/10/06 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

confidential status 30 days after the entry of this order. If defendants wish to maintain a document’s

confidential designation, they must make a specific request to the Court prior to that time.” Id. at

4:9-12. 

In general, “a party asserting good cause for sealing bears the burden, for each particular

document it seeks to protect, of showing that specific prejudice or harm will result if no protective

order is granted.” Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1022, 1130 (9th Cir. 2003). 

Here, Defendants’ motion to maintain confidentiality is deficient in that it does not demonstrate

good cause for sealing each of the documents, and instead makes general arguments that certain

categories of documents are confidential, yet still includes documents that are clearly not

confidential, such as a newspaper article. See Ex. A-1 at DEF003141-DEF003142. Further,

Defendants’ reliance on state law is misplaced. Indeed, Judge Illston has already ruled in this case

that state law privileges do not apply in this case based on federal claims. See Feb. 13, 2006 Order

Granting Pl.’s Mot. to Compel at 2:12-13. Given that Defendants have failed to heed Judge Illston’s

ruling that any future motion to maintain confidentiality identify “specific documents that

[Defendants] believe should be kept confidential, including justifications. . . ,” the Court has grounds

to simply deny this current motion. See May 23, 2006 Order Granting Mot. to Vacate Protective

Order at 4:4-5. However, the Court is concerned about the privacy rights of third parties, so it has

determined that at least some portions of these documents require redaction. 

According to Defendants, Exhibit A-1 contains confidential personnel records. But even a

brief examination of that exhibit reveals documents that are plainly not privileged, including a

newspaper article and job descriptions. Defendants have failed to make a particularized showing

that the entire exhibit should be under seal. However, the records in Exhibit A-1 shall be redacted to

conceal the names and personal identifying information of third parties, including students and

outside job applicants, and shall be redacted to conceal personal identifying information (such as

social security numbers), but not names, of internal job applicants. Plaintiff stated at the hearing that

she had no objection to these redactions. Defendants agreed that internal job applicants’ identities

were not confidential. Because the redactions eliminate the need for sealing, Defendants’ motion to

seal the personnel records in Exhibit A-1 is denied. 

Case 3:04-cv-03808-SI Document 462 Filed 08/10/06 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Exhibit A-2 contains excerpts of depositions that Defendants want sealed because the

testimony refers to documents contained in Exhibit A-1. Defendants’ request to seal or redact

personal identifying information from this exhibit is denied. 

According to Defendants, Exhibit C-1 contains documents from student files. Records from

student files are entitled to heightened protection under federal law. See Owasso Undep. Sch. Dist.

No. I-011 v. Flavo, 534 U.S. 426, 428-29 (2002); 20 U.S.C. § 1232g. However, at the hearing,

Defendants stated that they wanted to protect only the names and personal identifying information of

the students referenced in records contained in Exhibit C-1. Therefore, Exhibit C-1 shall be redacted

to conceal the names, personal identifying information, financial information and/or medical

information of students. Plaintiff has agreed that she will not file any document

without these redactions. Therefore, Defendants’ motion to file Exhibit C-1 under seal is denied. 

At 5:49 p.m. on August 8, 2006, after the hearing on Defendants’ motion, Defendants filed a

last minute request that the Court defer ruling on that portion of the motion relating to privileges

asserted by Defendants that are also at issue in Plaintiff’s motion to compel, which is scheduled to

be heard on August 22, 2006. The Court has determined that only Exhibits B-1 and B-2 are affected

by this request. The Court will defer ruling definitively on the confidentiality of Exhibits B-1 and

B-2 until it has considered the relevant portions of those briefs. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 10, 2006 

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:04-cv-03808-SI Document 462 Filed 08/10/06 Page 3 of 3