C. v. Merced City School District ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 REGINA SCHINDLER, et al., No. 1:19-cv-01188-DAD-BAM 12 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST TO SEAL DOCUMENTS 13 14 v. (Doc. No. 21) MERCED CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT, et 15 al., 16 17 Defendants. 18 Currently before the Court is the request by Plaintiffs Regina Schindler and Duwayne C., 19 by and through his guardian ad litem Regina Schindler, (“Plaintiffs”) to seal the parties’ Joint 20 Scheduling Report filed on January 2, 2020. (Doc. No. 13.) Defendants Merced City School 21 District, operating as Charles Wright Elementary School, Ken Cooper, Veronica Villa, Brian 22 Meisenheimer, Doug Collins, and Olivia Zarate (“Defendants”) were served with a copy of the 23 request and did not submit an opposition. For the reasons that follow, Plaintiffs’ request is 24 GRANTED. 25 “Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records 26 and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City & Cty. of 27 Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 28 1 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). “[J]udicial records are public documents almost by definition, and 2 the public is entitled to access by default.” Id. at 1180. This “federal common law right of access” 3 to court documents generally extends to “all information filed with the court,” and “creates a 4 strong presumption in favor of access to judicial documents which can be overcome only by 5 showing sufficiently important countervailing interests.” Phillips ex. Rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. 6 Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1212 (9th Cir. 2002) (citations and quotation marks omitted). Two 7 standards govern whether documents should be sealed: a “compelling reasons” standard and a 8 “good cause” standard. Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179; see also Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass'n, 605 9 F.3d 665, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2010). The key in determining which standard to apply is “whether 10 the motion is more than tangentially related to the merits of a case.” Ctr. For Auto Safety v. 11 Chrysler Group, LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2016). The “good cause” standard, which is 12 applicable here, presents a lower burden for the party wishing to seal documents. Pintos, 605 13 F.3d at 678. Courts determine whether good cause exists to protect the information from being 14 disclosed to the public by “balancing the needs for discovery against the need for confidentiality.” 15 Id. (quoting Phillips, 307 F.3d at 1213). 16 According to the request,1 the parties submitted a Joint Scheduling Report on January 2, 17 2020, which inadvertently included confidential and sensitive settlement communications 18 between the parties on page 13 lines 13 and 14. (See Doc. No. 13.) Plaintiffs seek to file a 19 redacted Joint Scheduling Report which excludes the dollar amount of the parties’ settlement 20 communication. Plaintiffs have additionally provided a stipulation to the request to seal signed 21 by Defendants. Having considered the request and the documents at issue, the Court concludes 22 that Plaintiffs’ have sufficiently shown good cause for maintaining the Joint Scheduling Report 23 filed January 2, 2020 under seal and for filing a Joint Scheduling Report which redacts the 24 settlement communications at issue. 25 Accordingly, good cause being shown, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 26 1 Local Rule 141(b) directs a party seeking to seal documents to electronically file a “Notice of Request to 27 Seal Documents” and to e-mail a “Request to Seal Documents,” proposed order, and all documents covered by the request to the appropriate Judge or Magistrate Judge’s proposed order e-mail box. Here, Plaintiffs electronically filed 28 the Request to Seal Documents concurrently with the Notice of Request to Seal Documents. (See Doc. No. 21.) 1 1. Plaintiffs’ request to seal (Doc. No. 21) is GRANTED; 2 2. The Clerk of Court is directed to SEAL the Joint Scheduling Report filed on 3 January 2, 2020 (Doc. No. 13); and 4 3. The parties may file a Joint Scheduling Report which redacts the settlement 5 communications set forth on page 13 lines 13 through 14 as proposed in Exhibit 1 to the request 6 to seal. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 9 Dated: February 3, 2020 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28