Source: http://www.scribd.com/doc/229317177/Order-Denying-Request-to-Seal
Timestamp: 2015-04-21 21:22:27
Document Index: 519330429

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 6250', '§ 6254', '§ 6254', '§ 6254', '§ 6254', '§ 6254', '§ 6254', '§ 6254', '§ 6254', '§ 1040']

P. 1Order Denying Request to SealOrder Denying Request to SealRatings: (0)|Views: 168|Likes: 0Published by Alan BeckbirdtbirdtMore info:Published by: Alan Beck on Jun 12, 2014Copyright:Traditional Copyright: All rights reservedAvailability:Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.download as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate content|Add to collectionSee moreSee lesshttps://www.scribd.com/doc/229317177/Order-Denying-Request-to-Seal06/12/2014pdftextoriginal . UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTCENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Proceedings: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER RE DEFENDANT’SAPPLICATION TO SEAL DOCUMENTS (Docket No. 68)
The Court in orders dated May 13, 2014 and May 23, 2014 required Defendant SanBernardino Sheriff’s Department (“SBSD”) to file and serve a copy of Plaintiff JonathanBirdt’s application file for a concealed weapon carry permit. The Court’s May 13, 2014Order provided that SBSD may request that the documents ordered produced be filed under seal “where sufficient justification to seal court records exists,” citing Local Rule79-5. Before the Court now is SBSD’s Application to Seal Plaintiff’s application file,which has been lodged with the Court. SBSD requests that the contents of Plaintiff’sapplication file not be made public or even made available to Plaintiff. At a minimum,SBSD seeks to avoid disclosure of the Background Investigator and the Background Investigation Report. SBSD’s Application to Seal is DENIED. Preliminarily, in a previous filing in which SBSD sought a protective order withoutattaching the application file, SBSD argued that the file should be suppressed out of concern for witnesses who may give information confidentially. The Court has reviewed the application file and there are no witnesses identified at all in the file. Protectingwitnesses obviously is not a valid ground for sealing Plaintiff’s application file or issuingany protective order./ / // / // / /
Case 5:13-cv-00673-VAP-JEM Document 74 Filed 06/11/14 Page 1 of 4 Page ID #:472
. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTCENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
1.California Public Records Act Exemptions. SBSD relies on an exemption in the California Public Records Act, Cal. Govt.Code § 6250, to support its Application to Seal. Under § 6254(f), law enforcementagencies are not required to disclose documents that are records of investigatory or security files compiled for “correctional, law enforcement, or licensing purposes.” SBSDcited § 6254(f) in its February 26, 2013 letter to the Plaintiff as its justification for not providing him with detailed information concerning individuals participating in theinvestigation. SBSD’s reliance on § 6254(f) is misplaced. First, this is a federal case asserting afederal civil rights claim and this Court is not obliged to follow nor is governed by statelaw. See Miller v. Panucci, 141 F.R.D. 292, 297 (C.D. Cal. 1992). Second, SBSD doesnot mention § 6254(u) which specifically states that certain information in applicationsfor licenses to carry firearms is not required to be disclosed. § 6254(u)(1) protectsinformation regarding threats to the applicant or the applicant’s medical or psychologicalhistory. § 6254(u)(2) and (3) protects the home address and telephone numbers of government personnel, including peace officers, listed in such applications or in thelicenses. Notably, § 6254(u)(2) and (3) do not protect the names of such personnel. Plaintiff’s application file does not contain the home address or telephone numbers of anySBSD personnel involved in denying Plaintiff’s application. The Court notes the recentCalifornia Supreme Court decision of Long Beach Police Officers Association v. City of Long Beach, — P.3d — , 2014 WL 2219041 (Cal. 2014) (May 29, 2014),
which held thatexemptions to the Public Records Act do not protect the names of officers involved incertain shootings while on duty, absent a specific safety concern regarding a particular officer. Long Beach did not involve a gun license but did hold that § 6254(f) is notapplicable to the names of the officers. The safety concerns of those who deny carry permits would not seem to exceed those of police officers involved in on-duty shootings. Thus, state law does not protect the names of those involved in the denial of Plaintiff’s application for a carry permit, including the Background Investigator,Background Investigator Supervisor and Employee Resources Commander, unless aspecific threat exists. SBSD suggests that Plaintiff may be a threat to its personnel butMr. Birdt has never committed a crime and as in Long Beach SBSD has not presented CV-90 (10/08)
Case 5:13-cv-00673-VAP-JEM Document 74 Filed 06/11/14 Page 2 of 4 Page ID #:473
any evidence that Mr. Birdt would be a credible physical threat to those who denied hisapplication. SBSD also seeks to protect the name of Captain Todd Paterson whom SBSDcharacterizes as “the Background Investigator.” There is nothing in the application file toindicate Captain Paterson had anything to do with Plaintiff’s application other thansending the February 26, 2013 denial letter to Plaintiff. With his name already revealed in the letter, SBSD’s Application to Seal his name is moot. 2.Official Information PrivilegeSBSD also invokes the official information privilege. SBSD does not identify thesource of this privilege but the official information privilege in California Evidence Code§ 1040(a) is inapplicable. In cases involving adjudication of federal rights, federalcommon law governs on issues of privilege, not state law. Miller, 141 F.R.D. at 297. Federal common law recognizes a qualified privilege for official information. Kelly v.City of San Jose, 114 F.R.D. 653, 661 (N.D. Cal. 1987). In applying this privilege, courtsmust balance the government’s interest in protecting the information from disclosureagainst the Plaintiff’s need for the information and the public’s interest in disclosure. Id.at 660. Plaintiff’s need for the information in his application file is compelling and overrides any interest in protecting that information from disclosure. Plaintiff simplycannot litigate his claim without access to the file. The Court repeatedly has said that itwants an accurate record on which to resolve Plaintiff’s Second Amendment claim. Indeed, SBSD has represented that Plaintiff’s application for a concealed weapon wasdenied on moral character grounds due to his State Bar suspension. On reviewing thefile, however, there appears to be other facts that motivated the denial, namely an incidentin which Plaintiff tried to submit his application in person. Plaintiff is entitled to knowwhy his application was denied. SBSD’s interest in protecting the mental impressions of the investigator to encourage honest assessment in reviewing applications must yield to permit litigation of Plaintiff’s claim on a full and accurate record.Thus, necessity dictates that Plaintiff’s application file be made available to him. Also, because there is no articulable safety issue that would constitute good cause under Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 26(c), the Court sees no basis for a protective order preventing
Case 5:13-cv-00673-VAP-JEM Document 74 Filed 06/11/14 Page 3 of 4 Page ID #:474