Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01641/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01641-7/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
George Anderson
Defendant
County of Kern
Defendant
Jane Doe
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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JANE DOE,

Plaintiff,

v.

COUNTY OF KERN and GEORGE 

ANDERSON,

Defendants.

No. 1:15-cv-01641-DAD-JLT

ORDER DENYING REQUEST TO SEAL 

AND REFERRING TO ASSIGNED 

MAGISTRATE JUDGE FOR FURTHER 

SCHEDULING

This matter involves claims brought under both 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law for the 

alleged sexual assault of plaintiff while she was in custody in juvenile hall by defendant 

Anderson. (Doc. No. 1.) On January 24, 2017, plaintiff filed a request to seal documents 

pursuant to Local Rule 141 in connection with her anticipated motion for summary adjudication. 

(Doc. No. 48.) For the reasons explained below, the request must be denied.

LEGAL STANDARD

All documents filed with the court are presumptively public. San Jose Mercury News, 

Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Court, 187 F.3d 1096, 1103 (9th Cir. 1999) (“It is well-established that the fruits 

of pretrial discovery are, in the absence of a court order to the contrary, presumptively public.”). 

Pursuant to Rule 5.2(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a court “may order that a filing 

be made under seal without redaction.” However, even if a court orders such a filing, it may 

“later unseal the filing or order the person who made the filing to file a redacted version for the 

Case 1:15-cv-01641-JLT Document 49 Filed 01/31/17 Page 1 of 4
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

public record.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2(d). “Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to 

inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and documents.’”

Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. 

Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). 

Two standards generally govern requests to seal documents. Pintos v. Pac. Creditors 

Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 677 (9th Cir. 2010).

[J]udicial records attached to dispositive motions [are treated] 

differently from records attached to non-dispositive motions. Those 

who seek to maintain the secrecy of documents attached to 

dispositive motions must meet the high threshold of showing that 

“compelling reasons” support secrecy. A “good cause” showing 

under Rule 26(c) will suffice to keep sealed records attached to 

non-dispositive motions.

Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1180 (citations omitted). Under the “compelling reasons” standard 

applicable to dispositive motions such as the one at issue here,1

[T]he court must conscientiously balance the competing interests of 

the public and the party who seeks to keep certain judicial records 

secret. After considering these interests, if the court decides to seal 

certain judicial records, it must base its decision on a compelling 

reason and articulate the factual basis for its ruling, without relying 

on hypothesis or conjecture.

Id. at 1178–79 (internal quotation marks, omissions, and citations omitted). The party seeking to 

seal a judicial record bears the burden of meeting the “compelling reasons” standard. Id. at 1178; 

Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003).

“In general, ‘compelling reasons’ sufficient to . . . justify sealing court records exist when 

such ‘court files might . . . become a vehicle for improper purposes,’ such as the use of records to 

 

1 While courts frequently use the language of “dispositive” and “non-dispositive,” the Ninth 

Circuit has clarified that the “compelling reasons” standard applies whenever the motion at issue 

“is more than tangentially related to the merits of a case.” Center for Auto Safety v. Chrysler 

Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1101 (9th Cir. 2016). Thus, in certain instances, the proposed filing of 

documents under seal in connection with motions for preliminary injunction, for sanctions, or in 

limine, though such motions are not actually dispositive of an issue or claim, may be subjected to 

the “compelling reasons” test, predicated on the public’s right of access and the need to “provide 

the public with a more complete understanding of the judicial system and a better perception of 

its fairness.” Id. at 1097–1101 (quoting Leucadia, Inc. v. Applied Extrusion Techs., Inc., 998 F.2d 

157, 161 (3d Cir. 1993)).

Case 1:15-cv-01641-JLT Document 49 Filed 01/31/17 Page 2 of 4
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

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). “The 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. “The 

‘compelling reasons’ standard is invoked even if the dispositive motion, or its attachments, were 

previously filed under seal or protective order.” Id. at 1178–79.

DISCUSSION

The pending request to seal relates to plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment, 

which is “more than tangentially related to the merits” of the case. See Center for Auto Safety, 

809 F.3d at 1101. Therefore, the party seeking to seal the documents must demonstrate 

“compelling reasons” exist to justify sealing them. Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178–80.

Here, plaintiff proposes the court authorize her motion for partial summary judgment and 

all supporting documents in support thereof to be filed under seal in their entirety because the 

motion “makes extensive use of deposition testimony regarding the County’s internal 

investigation into Plaintiff’s allegations,” which was “designated as confidential in the course of 

discovery.” (Doc. No. 48 at 2.) Further, plaintiff’s request states that defendant Anderson 

“contends that documents and information from the internal investigation, together with 

deposition testimony that refers to those documents, including any personnel file information, is 

protected by the Peace Officer Bill of Rights, Cal. Gov. Code 8300 et seq., together with the 

federal official information and deliberative process privileges.” (Id.)

Plaintiff’s request is clearly insufficient to warrant the filing of the documents in question 

under seal. The mere fact that the parties have chosen to designate documents as “confidential”

during discovery falls far short of demonstrating they will “become a vehicle for improper 

purposes.” See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (quotation omitted). Similarly, generic assertions of 

protections under California law or purportedly applicable privileges do not provide the court 

with either “a compelling reason” or the ability to “articulate the factual basis for its ruling, 

without relying on hypothesis or conjecture,” as required by the law. Id. at 1178–79. Here, no 

showing in support of filing the documents in question, in their entirety, under seal has been made 

Case 1:15-cv-01641-JLT Document 49 Filed 01/31/17 Page 3 of 4
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

whatsoever and the parties cannot avoid making the required showing simply by filing the request

to seal jointly or by stipulating to their sealing.

CONCLUSION

For these reasons, plaintiff’s request to seal documents (Doc. No. 48) is denied without 

prejudice to its renewal based upon a proper showing. See Local Rule 141(e). Pursuant to the 

scheduling order entered in this case, the deadline for filing dispositive motions was January 24, 

2017. (Doc. No. 25.) Since permission was sought by plaintiff to file the motion for summary 

adjudication entirely under seal, the failure to make the required showing justifying such sealing

means no dispositive motion was timely filed. See Local Rule 141(e) (noting that, if a request to 

seal is denied, the documents will be returned to the submitting party and not filed on the court’s 

docket). Recognizing, however, that plaintiffs timely filed the request to seal, the court refers this

matter to the assigned magistrate judge for rescheduling, including setting of new deadlines for 

the filing of dispositive motions to be filed and heard, the final pretrial conference, and trial.2

Further, the court recognizes that defendants here are likely better situated to make the 

required showing for sealing than are plaintiffs. To that end, the undersigned will only consider 

future requests to seal or redact filed by the proponent of sealing or redaction. If a party plans to 

make a filing that includes material an opposing party has identified as confidential and 

potentially subject to sealing, the filing party shall provide the opposing party with sufficient 

notice in advance of filing to allow for the opposing party to seek an order of sealing or redaction 

from the court. The parties should note that protective orders covering the discovery phase of 

litigation do not govern the filing of sealed or redacted documents on the public docket, which are 

governed by Local Rules 140 and 141.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 30, 2017 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

2

The parties are encouraged, if possible, to submit a proposed stipulation and order for the 

magistrate judge’s consideration in this regard after consulting with the undersigned’s courtroom 

deputy with respect to available dates.

Case 1:15-cv-01641-JLT Document 49 Filed 01/31/17 Page 4 of 4