(PC) Smithee v. California Correctional Institution ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DANA SMITHEE, et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00004 LJO JLT 12 Plaintiffs, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO SEAL CERTAIN PORTIONS OF THE MOTION TO 13 v. AMEND THE AMENDED COMPLAINT (Doc. 118) 14 CALIFORNIA CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTE, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 The plaintiffs seek an order sealing portions of certain documents filed with their motion 18 to amend their pleading. (Doc. 118) The plaintiffs offer no explanation why these documents 19 should be sealed. At most, they assert that the information at issue comes within the protective 20 order issued by this Court (Doc. 106). The Court has reviewed the documents at issue to attempt 21 to discern why they should be kept from the public view, but it cannot find a basis for sealing. 22 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) determines when documents may be sealed. The 23 Rule permits the Court to issue orders to “protect a party or person from annoyance, 24 embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense, including . . . requiring that a trade 25 secret or other confidential research, development, or commercial information not be revealed or 26 be revealed only in a specified way.” Only if good cause exists may the Court seal the 27 information from public view after balancing “the needs for discovery against the need for 28 confidentiality.’” Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. Cal. 2010) (quoting 1 Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1213 (9th Cir. 2002)). 2 Generally, documents filed in civil cases are presumed to be available to the public. 3 EEOC v. Erection Co., 900 F.2d 168, 170 (9th Cir. 1990); see also Kamakana v. City and County 4 of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006); Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 331 5 F.3d 1122, 1134 (9th Cir. 2003). The Court may seal documents only when the compelling 6 reasons for doing so outweigh the public’s right of access. EEOC at 170. In evaluating the 7 request, the Court considers the “public interest in understanding the judicial process and whether 8 disclosure of the material could result in improper use of the material for scandalous or libelous 9 purposes or infringement upon trade secrets.” Valley Broadcasting Co. v. United States District 10 Court, 798 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1986). 11 Local Rule 141 sets forth how a request to seal documents should be made. The protective 12 order detailed that documents “protected” were not automatically entitled to be filed under seal 13 and recited the parties’ understanding of their obligation to comply with the Rule (Doc. 106 at 2). 14 The legal authority recited here also demonstrates that sealing may occur only if good cause is 15 shown. 16 The Court agrees that the information sought to be sealed contains sensitive information, 17 which reflects on the decedent’s mental health in the period leading up to his death. However, it is 18 similar to the information set forth in all of the complaints. Thus, the Court is uncertain why this 19 information should be redacted when the other, similar information was not. In addition, the 20 “redacted” copy of the declaration of Dr. Chamberlain provided with the motion to seal (Doc. 21 118-1) is easily readable and would not shield the information from public view. Because there is 22 not good cause shown for the request, the request is DENIED. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 25 Dated: December 6, 2021 _ /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 26 27 28