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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FREDERICK JACKSON, ASHLEY NICOLE

JACKSON, a minor, BRIANA

FREDRANIQUE ANNETTE JACKSON, a

minor, and SHAWNA YVETTE MARTIN, 

Plaintiffs,

 v.

CITY OF PITTSBURG, AARON L. BAKER,

individually and in his official capacity as

Chief of Police of the City of Pittsburg Police

Department, G. LOMBARDI, individually and

as an officer of the City of Pittsburg Police

Department (Badge # 275), C. SMITH,

individually and as an officer of the City of

Pittsburg Police Department (Badge # 285),

P. DUMPA, individually and as an officer of

the City of Pittsburg Police Department (Badge

# 291), WILLIAM BLAKE HATCHER,

individually and as an officer of the City of

Pittsburg Police Department (Badge # 274),

SARA SPIRES, individually and as an officer of

the City of Pittsburg Police Department,

and DOES 1–100, inclusive,

Defendants. /

No. C 09-01016 WHA

ORDER DENYING

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO

SEAL THE TESTIMONY OF

ROGER CLARK

Plaintiffs’ motion to seal the testimony of expert witness Roger Clark is DENIED.

Clark’s testimony was in open court and a matter of public record. The Ninth Circuit has

emphasized that there is a “strong presumption” in favor of public access to court documents. 

Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). Litigants must

present “compelling reasons,” beyond good cause, to justify sealing court records. Ibid. These

reasons must by supported by “articulable facts” identifying both the secrecy interests and how

these interests outweigh the public interest in access. Id. at 1181.

Case 3:09-cv-01016-WHA Document 238 Filed 08/23/10 Page 1 of 2
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

 Plaintiffs claim that circulation of the testimony will violate California law and injure

Clark. But plaintiffs have not identified particular offending instances of testimony and have

not narrowly tailored their motion to seal or redact only that testimony. This omission runs

afoul of Civil Local Rule 79-5(a).

Plaintiffs may make a new, more particularized, motion to seal. But if plaintiffs do not

bring a new motion by NOON ON MONDAY, AUGUST 30, the Court will order the clerk to unseal

the testimony. Plaintiffs are on notice that a new motion must (1) be narrowly tailored in light

of the strong presumption in favor of access to court documents, conforming to Civil Local Rule

79-5; (2) articulate facts in support of compelling reasons to seal, in accordance with

Kamakana; and (3) address the extent to which contemporaneous evidentiary objections were

made, or not made, and why resolution of any such objections should not also resolve the issues

presented by their motion to seal. 

The hearing set for September 2, 2010, at 8:00 a.m. is hereby VACATED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 23, 2010. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:09-cv-01016-WHA Document 238 Filed 08/23/10 Page 2 of 2