Source: http://ca.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20170719_0005445.NCA.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2018-03-25 05:37:40
Document Index: 526922106

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 15630', '§ 15633', '§ 15633', '§ 15630', '§ 15633', '§ 15633']

ORDER RE SEALING MOTIONS Re: Dkt. Nos. 42, 60
Before the Court is Defendants' administrative motion for file under seal, ECF No. 42, and Plaintiff's administrative motion to file under seal, ECF No. 60. For the reasons discussed below, the Court GRANT Defendants' motion to seal and GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Plaintiff's motion to seal.
In the instant case, both Defendants' and Plaintiff's motions to file under seal are made in connection with Defendants' motion for summary judgment. Motions for summary judgment are dispositive motions and are “more than tangentially related to the underlying cause of action.” Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1099. Therefore, the compelling reasons standard applies to the instant motions to seal. Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1177 (“[T]o retain any protected status for documents attached to a summary judgment motion, the proponent must meet the ‘compelling reasons' standard and not the lesser ‘good cause' determination.”).
(1) Declaration of Susan Spiller, see ECF No. 42-1;
(2) Declaration of Paul Smoot, ECF No. 60-1.
Defendants' motion to file under seal seeks to seal a report of suspected elder abuse under Welfare Institutions Code (“WIC”) § 15630 that Susan Spiller submitted to the Santa Clara County Ombudsman and Adult Protective Services on or about May 26, 2017. ECF No. 42. Defendants argue that compelling reasons exist to seal this report under WIC § 15633. WIC § 15633 provides that reports under § 15630 “shall be confidential” and may only be disclosed in particular circumstances not present in the instant case. Civil Local Rule 79-5 states that material is sealable if it is “entitled to protection under the law.” Civ. L. R. 79-5(b). Thus, the Court finds that compliance with WIC § 15633's confidentiality requirements constitutes a compelling reason to seal the report of suspected elder abuse. Therefore, the Court GRANTS Defendants' motion to file under seal.
Plaintiff's motion seeks to file under seal Exhibit K, Exhibit W, and Exhibit GG to the Declaration of Peter McMahon in Support of Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Adjudication. ECF No. 60. Exhibit W contains a record of a report made to the Santa Clara County Department of Adult Protective Services. As discussed above, the confidentiality of this report is protected by WIC § 15633. Therefore, the Court finds that compelling reasons exist to seal Exhibit W.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;With respect to Exhibit K and Exhibit GG, Plaintiff claims that sealing is warranted because these documents were designated as confidential &ldquo;under the terms of the protective order entered by the Court.&rdquo; ECF No. 60 at 4. However, under the Court&#39;s Civil Local Rules, &ldquo;[r]eference to a stipulation or protective order that allows a party to designate certain documents as confidential is not sufficient to establish that a document, or portions thereof, are sealable.&rdquo; Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(A). Additionally, although Plaintiff claims that Exhibit K, if disclosed, &ldquo;could cause harm to Defendants and their employees in their respective communities, &rdquo; Plaintiff asserts only that this establishes &ldquo;good cause&rdquo; to seal Exhibit K. ECF No. 60 at 4. As discussed above, the applicable standard for the instant motions to seal is the compelling reasons standard, not the good cause standard. Moreover, a vague claim that information &ldquo;could cause harm&rdquo; is not sufficiently specific to establish compelling reasons to justify sealing. Id; see also Beckman Indus., 966 F.2d at 476 (holding that “[b]road allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples or ...