Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02152/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02152-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
David Bailey
Defendant
City of Chico
Defendant
Joseph Rosales
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

JOSEPH ROSALES,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF CHICO; DAVID BAILEY; 

AND DOES 1 THROUGH 10 (in 

their official and/or 

capacities),

Defendants.

CIV. No. 2:14-02152 WBS-CMK

ORDER

----oo0oo----

Plaintiff has submitted a request to seal Exhibits F 

and G to the Declaration of Darrell J. York of plaintiff’s 

opposition to defendants’ motion for summary judgment. (Am. Req. 

to Seal (Docket No. 15).) Defendants do not oppose the motion.

A party seeking to seal a judicial record bears the 

burden of overcoming a strong presumption in favor of public 

access. Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 

Case 2:14-cv-02152-WBS-CMK Document 16 Filed 09/18/15 Page 1 of 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

2

1178 (9th Cir. 2006). The party must “articulate compelling 

reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the 

general history of access and the public policies favoring 

disclosure, such as the public interest in understanding the 

judicial process.” Id. at 1178-79 (citation omitted). In ruling 

on a motion to seal, notwithstanding the other parties’ failure 

to object, the court must balance the competing interests of the 

public and the party or parties seeking to keep records secret. 

Id. at 1179.

Plaintiff offers little explanation for his request. He

states that the documents should be sealed because they contain 

confidential information and are subject to a stipulated 

protective order signed by Magistrate Judge Kellison. (Id.; 

Stipulated Protective Order (Docket No. 10).) This court has 

previously pointed out that a confidentiality agreement between 

the parties does not per se constitute a compelling reason to seal 

documents that outweighs the interests of public disclosure and 

access. See Oct. 8, 2014 Order at 2, Starbucks Corp. v. Amcor 

Packaging Distrib., Civ. No. 2:13-1754 (E.D. Cal. 2014); Sept. 3, 

2015 Order at 3, Foster Poultry Farms, Inc. v. Certain 

Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London, Civ. No. 1:14-00953 (E.D. Cal. 

2015). The fact that the assigned magistrate judge signed the 

stipulated protective order does not change this principle. 

Beyond the stipulated protective order, plaintiff 

asserts that there is “good cause” to seal but offers no further 

guidance as to why there is “good cause.” (Am. Req. to Seal at 

2.) These boilerplate concerns do not outweigh the history of 

access and public policies favoring disclosure to the public and 

Case 2:14-cv-02152-WBS-CMK Document 16 Filed 09/18/15 Page 2 of 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

3

the media. Especially here, where the case involves allegations 

of police misconduct, the public may have an interest in the case 

and the court must protect the public’s right to access. The 

court has reviewed the documents which plaintiff asks to seal and 

finds no compelling reason to shield them from public scrutiny.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff’s request to seal

be, and the same hereby is, DENIED.

Dated: September 18, 2015

Case 2:14-cv-02152-WBS-CMK Document 16 Filed 09/18/15 Page 3 of 3