Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00144/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00144-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1331pi Fed. Question: Personal Injury

---

pJSKia

1

JAN 3 1 2018 2

r - 3 SOUTHERN ::

EY

- n

4

5

6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10 I: A MAN1,

Case No. 18-cv-0144-BAS-BGS 11 Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING REQUEST TO

SEAL COMPLAINT AND

ACCOMPANYING PAPERS

12

13 v.

14 BETTY T.YEE,

15 Defendant.

16 Presently before the Court is a request to seal the Complaint and

accompanying papers filed in this action. The Court DENIES the request for two

reasons. First, the moving papers accompanying the Complaint do not properly

request that the action be filed under seal. No reason is offered to file the Complaint

and accompanying papers under seal other than a single use ofthe word “seal.” The

papers further define the term “seal” in a way that convinces this Court that the

Plaintiff does not in fact seek to file the Complaint and accompanying papers under

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24 1 The Court further advises that upon entry of the Complaint and the

accompanying papers on the electronic docket, the Complaint will be subject to sua

sponte dismissal for, among other reasons, failure to comply with Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 10(a). The rule provides that “the title ofthe complaint must name

all parties.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(a). This is a mandate that parties use theirtrue names

in pleadings. See John Doe 140 v. Archdiocese ofPortland in Or., 248 F.R.D. 358,

359 (D. Or. 2008). The caption in the Complaint fails to comply with this rule.

-1-

25

26

27

28

18cvl44

Case 3:18-cv-00144-BAS-BGS Document 4 Filed 01/31/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
1 seal.

2 Second, even assuming there were a proper request to seal, the Court finds

that the Complaint and accompanying papers do not satisfy the stringent standard

for placing under seal documents going to the merits of a case brought in federal

court. “[T]he courts of this country recognize 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 (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 & Cty. ofHonolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th

Cir. 2006) (citing Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122,1135 (9th

Cir. 2003)). “The presumption of access is ‘based on the need for federal courts,

although independent—indeed, particularly because they are independent—to have

a measure of accountability and for the public to have confidence in the

administration ofjustice.” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d

1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1048

(2d Cir. 1995)). A party seeking to seal a judicial record bears the burden of

overcoming the strong presumption of access. Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1135. Under this

stringent standard, a court may seal records only when it finds “a compelling reason

and articulate[s] the factual basis for its ruling, without relying on hypothesis or

conjecture.” Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1096-97. Having reviewed the

Complaint and accompanying papers, the Court finds that the Complaint and

accompany documents are not documents traditionally kept under seal, nor is there

any compelling reason that would justify filing them under seal.

Accordingly, the Court DIRECTS the Clerk ofthe Court to file the Complaint

and accompanying documents publicly on the electronic docket for this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 31, 2018

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 Hoq. Cynthia Bashant

United StatesDistrictJudge 28

-2- 18cvl44

Case 3:18-cv-00144-BAS-BGS Document 4 Filed 01/31/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2