(PC) Concepcion v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MYCHAL CONCEPCION (a/k/a/ MICHELLE Case No.: 1:18-cv-01743-NONE -JLT CONCEPCION), 12 Plaintiff, [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING 13 REQUEST TO SEAL DOCUMENTS v. (Doc. 47) 14 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF 15 CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, et al., 16 Defendants. 17 18 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) permits the Court to issue orders to “protect a party or 19 person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense, including . . . 20 requiring that a trade secret or other confidential research, development, or commercial information not 21 be revealed or be revealed only in a specified way.” Only if good cause exists may the Court seal the 22 information from public view after balancing “the needs for discovery against the need for 23 confidentiality.’” Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. Cal. 2010) (quoting Phillips 24 ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1213 (9th Cir. 2002)). 25 Presumptively, documents filed in civil cases are to be available to the public. EEOC v. Erection 26 Co., 900 F.2d 168, 170 (9th Cir. 1990); see also Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 27 1172, 1178 (9th Cir.2006); Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1134 (9th Cir.2003). 28 The Court may seal documents only when the compelling reasons for doing so outweigh the public’s 1 right of access. EEOC at 170. In evaluating the request, the Court considers the “public interest in 2 understanding the judicial process and whether disclosure of the material could result in improper use of 3 the material for scandalous or libelous purposes or infringement upon trade secrets.” Valley 4 Broadcasting Co. v. United States District Court, 798 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1986). 5 The plaintiff seeks to seal documents which describe the plaintiff’s history related to his gender 6 assignment and need for gender reassignment. Due to the nature of the document, redaction is 7 impractical. The information contained in the record is highly sensitive and is deserving of 8 confidentiality. Thus, the Court finds a compelling need for the information contained in the record to 9 remain private 1 and ORDERS Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of the Declaration of S. Chaiken (Doc. 46-1) 10 to be SEALED. 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 13 Dated: December 22, 2020 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 1 Counsel are advised that this order does not preclude the Court from issuing orders on the public docket which discusses information contained in the sealed administrative record. On the other hand, the Court may issue orders under seal temporarily 27 and give the parties an opportunity to recommend redactions for the public version of the order. In this event, failing to recommend redactions may result in the Court docketing the full order, which would open the confidential information public 28 review.