(PC) Coleman v. Newsom ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RALPH COLEMAN, et al., No. CIV 2:90-0520 KJM DB P 12 Plaintiffs, 13 v. ORDER 14 GAVIN NEWSOM, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Good cause appearing, the Special Master’s request to file his response to the court’s 18 October 18, 2022 minute order, ECF No. 7631, under seal in GRANTED. 19 “Every court has supervisory power over its own records and files, and access has been 20 denied where court files might have become a vehicle for improper purposes.” Nixon v. Warner 21 Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978). When a party moves to seal a record, the Court 22 looks to the underlying motion and determines whether it is “more than tangentially related to the 23 merits of the case. Ctr. For Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1101 (9th. Cir.), 24 cert. denied sub nom. FCA U.S. LLC v. Ctr. For Auto Safety, 137 S. Ct. 38 (2016). When a 25 motion is unrelated or only tangentially related to the merits of the case, the good cause standard 26 applies. Id. at 1097-98. To establish good cause, a party must show “specific prejudice or harm 27 will result” absent sealing, Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 28 2003), which may include the need “to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, 1 || oppression, or undue burden or expense.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). Here, the court finds that the 2 || good cause standard is met. 3 The Court’s clerk is directed to file the previously conditionally lodged copy of Special 4 | Master Matthew A. Lopes, Jr.’s response to the court’s October 18, 2022 minute order in the 5 || record, under seal until further order of the court. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 || DATED: October 24, 2022. 10 CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28