Reade v. New York Times Company ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ----oo0oo---- 11 12 TARA READE, No. 2:22-cv-00543 WBS KJN 13 Plaintiff, 14 v. ORDER RE: REQUEST TO FILE DOCUMENT UNDER SEAL 15 THE NEW YORK TIMES COMPANY, 16 Defendant. 17 18 ----oo0oo---- 19 In conjunction with its motion to dismiss (Docket No. 20 10) and its special motion to strike (Docket No. 11), defendant 21 has submitted a request to file under seal an unredacted version 22 of the photograph plaintiff provided to it. (Request to File 23 Under Seal (“Request”), Docket No. 13.)) That photograph is an 24 image of plaintiff’s ID card from the United States Senate and 25 contains what the parties represent is the upper half of her 26 Social Security number. 27 “The proponent of sealing bears the burden” of 28 overcoming a “strong presumption in favor of [public] access.” 1 Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178, 1182 2 (9th Cir. 2006). To do so, the party must “articulate[ ] 3 compelling reasons,” Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 331 4 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003) (citing San Jose Mercury News, 5 Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 187 F.3d 1096, 1102–03 (9th Cir. 1999)), 6 “that outweigh the general history of access and the public 7 policies favoring disclosure, such as the ‘public interest in 8 understanding the judicial process,’” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178- 9 79 (quoting Hagestad v. Tragesser, 49 F.3d 1430, 1434 (9th Cir. 10 1995)). “In turn, the court must ‘conscientiously balance the 11 competing interests’ of the public and the party who seeks to 12 keep certain judicial records secret.” Id. at 1179 (quoting 13 Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1135) (alteration adopted). 14 In its request, defendant contends that sealing is 15 necessary so that the image may be considered “in its unredacted 16 form,” as defendant contends is necessary to show that defendant 17 “had no independent reason to believe, based on the face of the 18 photograph, that the number partially shown at the bottom was a 19 social security number.” (Request at ¶ 2.) The court agrees. 20 Nevertheless, although the unredacted image may not be filed 21 publicly, the court believes that publication of as much of the 22 image as possible, consistent with plaintiff’s right of privacy, 23 is also necessary to allow for a full understanding of the 24 court’s decision on defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s 25 complaint and the reasons for it. 26 Accordingly, balancing the importance of public access 27 to judicial records -- as is necessary to serve the “public 28 interest in understanding the judicial process,” Hagestad, 49 eee RII IE IE IER OI OE ORI 1 F.3d at 1434 -- against individuals’ privacy interests, see 2 Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179, the court will adopt the procedure 3 set forth in Local Rule 140(a) (111), which allows publication of 4 Social Security numbers in partially redacted form, publishing 5 only the last four digits of the number. Thus, in addition to 6 | granting the request to file the unredacted image under seal, the 7 court will also attach a partially redacted image of plaintiff's 8 Senate ID as an exhibit to its Order on defendant’s motion to 9 dismiss, which unlike the version of the image to be filed under 10 seal, will omit the first five digits of what plaintiff alleges 11 to be her Social Security number. 12 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendant’s request 13 (Docket No. 13) is GRANTED. The Clerk is hereby directed to file 14 the unredacted image of plaintiff’s Senate ID, provided by 15 | defendant as Exhibit 2 to the Declaration of Al-Amyn Sumar 16 (Docket No. 12), under seal. 17 | Dated: June 30, 2022 he bloom HK Ad. KE 18 WILLIAM B. SHUBB 19 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28