Nash-Perry v. City of Bakersfield ( 2021 )

1 RODNEY S. DIGGS, ESQ. (SBN 274459) rdiggs@imwlaw.com 2 IVIE McNEILL WYATT PURCELL & DIGGS, APLC 444 S. Flower St., Suite 1800 3 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Tel: (213) 489-0028; Fax: (213) 489-0552 4 5 BRIAN T. DUNN, ESQ. (SBN 176502) Email: bdunn@cochranfirm.com 6 JAMES A. BRYANT II, Esq. (SBN 255652) 7 Jbryant@cochranfirm.com THE COCHRAN FIRM CALIFORNIA 8 4929 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1010 9 Los Angeles, California 90010 Telephone: (323) 435-8205 10 Facsimile: (323) 282-5280 11 Attorneys for Plaintiffs TAMETRIA NASH-PERRY, JASON OKAMOTO and Z.S. 12 by and through her Guardian Ad Litem, Brittney Saucedo 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 14 15 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 16 TAMETRIA NASH-PERRY, CASE NO.: 1:18−cv−01512−LJO−JLT an individual (Consolidated with Case No. 1:19-CV- 17 Plaintiff, 01125) 18 vs. [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING 19 CITY OF BAKERSFIELD, PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO FILE OFFICER ALEJANDRO EXHIBIT UNDER SEAL 20 PATINO, and DOES 1-10, (Doc. 69) Inclusive, 21 Defendants. 22 JASON OKAMOTO, individually 23 and as successor-in-interest to CHRISTOPHER OKAMOTO, 24 Deceased, “Z.S.,” a minor by and through her Guardian ad Litem, 25 Brittney Saucedo, 26 Plaintiffs, 27 v. 28 1 2 CITY OF BAKERSFIELD; OFFICER ALEJANDRO 3 PATINO; DOES 1-20, inclusive, 4 5 Defendants 6 7 8 The plaintiffs have filed a motion to file photos from the autopsy of their decedent under 9 seal (Doc. 69) Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir.2006). 10 In general, documents filed in civil cases are presumed to be available to the public. EEOC v. 11 Erection Co., 900 F.2d 168, 170 (9th Cir. 1990); see also Kamakana at 1178 (9th Cir.2006); 12 Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1134 (9th Cir.2003). Documents may be 13 sealed only when the compelling reasons for doing so outweigh the public’s right of access. 14 EEOC at 170. 15 The request to seal documents is controlled by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). 16 The Rule permits the Court to issue orders to “protect a party or person from annoyance, 17 embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense, including . . . requiring that a trade 18 secret or other confidential research, development, or commercial information not be revealed or 19 be revealed only in a specified way.” Only if good cause exists may the Court seal the 20 information from public view after balancing “the needs for discovery against the need for 21 confidentiality.’” Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. Cal. 2010) (quoting 22 Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1213 (9th Cir. 2002)). 23 Likewise, Local Rule 141 requires a demonstration of the compelling need for the information to 24 be shielded from public view. L.R. 141(b). 25 The Court has reviewed the records at issue. The Court agrees that they contain 26 private medical information that should not be disclosed on the public docket. Many of the 27 photos are graphic in the extreme and there is no purpose to displaying them on the public 28 1 docket. Based upon the foregoing, the Court ORDERS: 2 1. The plaintiffs’ request to seal Exhibit 12 to the declaration of James A. Bryant is 3 GRANTED. 4 2. Within three court days, the plaintiffs SHALL email the relevant documents, 5 specifically, those documents that were filed with redactions, to 6 ApprovedSealed@caed.uscourts.gov for filing under seal. 7 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 Dated: July 28, 2021 _ /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 10 CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28