Porter v. Solano County Sheriff's Office ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 SACRAMENTO DIVISION 11 NAKIA V. PORTER, an individual on her Case No. 2:21-CV-01473-KJM-JDP 12 own behalf and on behalf of her minor children, L.P. and A.P; JOE BERRY ORDER 13 POWELL, JR., an individual; and CLIFTON POWELL, on behalf of his minor child, O.P., Hon. Kimberly J. Mueller 14 United States District Judge Plaintiffs, 15 v. 16 COUNTY OF SOLANO; SOLANO 17 COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE; SHERIFF THOMAS A. FERRARA, in his official 18 capacity as Sheriff of Solano County; DEPUTY DALTON MCCAMPBELL, an 19 individual; DEPUTY LISA MCDOWELL, an individual; SERGEANT ROY STOCKTON, 20 an individual; DEPUTY CONNOR HAMILTON, an individual; DEPUTY CHRIS 21 CARTER, an individual; CITY OF DIXON; DIXON POLICE DEPARTMENT; DIXON 22 POLICE CHIEF ROBERT THOMPSON, in his official capacity as Dixon Chief of Police; 23 OFFICER GABRIEL HOLLINGSHEAD, an individual, OFFICER AARON WILLIAMS, 24 an individual, and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, 25 Defendants. 26 27 ] The plaintiffs’ request to seal the declarations of Nakia V. Porter, Clifton Powell, and Yasin M. 2 || Almadani, which were filed in support of an application to continue representing their minor children in 3 || this action. See Notice of Request to Seal, ECF No. 41. The defendants have not opposed the request. 4 || The court denies the request. 5 “[T]he courts of this country recognize a general right to inspect and copy public records and 6 || documents, including judicial records and documents.” Nixon v. Warner Communications, 435 U.S. 589, 7 || 597 (1978). And there is a “strong presumption in favor of access” to the record unless an exception 8 || applies. Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003). To seal documents 9 || filed in connection with a dispositive motion, parties must show there are “compelling reasons” for doing 10 Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 180 (9th Cir. 2006)). “A ‘good cause’ 11 || showing under Rule 26(c) will suffice to keep sealed records attached to non-dispositive motions.” Id. 12 Here plaintiffs seek to seal the affidavits in support of their request that “Ms. Porter and Mr. 13 || Powell seek to be appointed as guardian’s [sic] ad litem for their respective children.” Application at 1, 14 || ECF No. 40. Thus, the good cause standard applies. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 180; J.B. v. Banning 15 || Unified Sch. Dist., No. 18-2134, 2018 WL 6164312, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 18, 2018) (applying good cause 16 || standard request to seal an application for appointment of guardian ad litem). While the information in 17 || the declarations by Ms. Porter and Mr. Powell that can be used to identify the minor plaintiffs is sensitive, 18 || it does not present good cause for sealing the declarations in their entirety. Rather, the plaintiffs shall file 19 || their declarations with redactions of the minors’ names, birthdates, and addresses to protect the privacy 20 || of the minor plaintiffs. See Local Rule 140. The court also finds there is no good cause to seal the 21 || declaration of counsel Almadani, which makes the disclosures required under this court’s Local Rule 22 |) 202(c). 23 The court denies the request to seal (ECF No. 41). 24 SO ORDERED. 29 || DATED: June 30, 2022. 26 (] CHIEF NT] ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 28