Garcia v. County of Sacramento ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SALVADOR GARCIA, JR., No. 2:23-cv-00899-DAD-CSK 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ REQUEST TO SEAL 14 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, et al., (Doc. No. 24) 15 Defendants. 16 17 This matter is before the court on defendants’ notice of request to seal certain documents 18 that have already been publicly filed on the docket in this action. (Doc. No. 24.) For the reasons 19 set forth below, defendants’ request to seal will be granted. 20 BACKGROUND 21 This case arises from an incident on September 17, 2022, involving the alleged excessive 22 use of force against plaintiff Salvador Garcia, Jr. by a police canine deployed by a law 23 enforcement officer. (Doc. No. 17.) On December 8, 2023, plaintiff filed his operative first 24 amended complaint (“FAC”). (Id.) In his FAC, plaintiff alleges that certain defendants have a 25 policy and custom of failing to discipline their subordinates. (Id. at ¶ 110.) In support of this 26 allegation, plaintiff alleges various examples of incidents where subordinates received “minimal, 27 insignificant and untimely discipline” for their misconduct. (Id.) Relevant here, three alleged 28 incidents involve two non-party sheriff’s deputies who were disciplined for improperly accessing 1 files for personal reasons (id. ¶¶ 110(t), 110(p)); sending inappropriate emails from a work- 2 related email address (id. ¶ 110(p)); and stalking (id. ¶ 110(o)). 3 On May 8, 2024, defendants filed a notice of request to seal, seeking to seal or redact the 4 names of the non-party deputies in those specific subparagraphs of the FAC, arguing that 5 inclusion of this information on the public docket is “improper because they are derived from 6 confidential documents subject to a Protective Order.” (Doc. No. 24 at 2.) Consistent with Local 7 Rule 141(b), defendants filed the request to seal in camera. (Req.) Pursuant to Local Rule 8 141(c), plaintiff timely submitted an opposition to defendants’ request, also in camera. (Opp’n.) 9 LEGAL STANDARD 10 All documents filed with the court are presumptively public. San Jose Mercury News, 11 Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Court, 187 F.3d 1096, 1103 (9th Cir. 1999) (“It is well-established that the fruits 12 of pretrial discovery are, in the absence of a court order to the contrary, presumptively public.”). 13 “Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records and 14 documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 15 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 16 597 & n.7 (1978)). 17 Two standards generally govern requests to seal documents. Pintos v. Pac. Creditors 18 Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 677 (9th Cir. 2010). The standards used are based on the type of motion to 19 which the documents to be sealed are attached: 20 [W]e treat judicial records attached to dispositive motions differently from records attached to non-dispositive motions. Those who seek 21 to maintain the secrecy of documents attached to dispositive motions must meet the high threshold of showing that “compelling reasons” 22 support secrecy. A “good cause” showing under Rule 26(c) will suffice to keep sealed records attached to non-dispositive motions. 23 24 Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1180 (citing Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 25 1135, 1136 (9th Cir. 2003)). The reason for these two different standards is that “[n]ondispositive 26 motions are often unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action, and, as 27 a result, the public’s interest in accessing dispositive materials does not apply with equal force to 28 ///// 1 non-dispositive materials.” Pintos, 605 F.3d at 678 (citations and internal quotation marks 2 omitted). 3 ANALYSIS 4 The parties dispute which standard applies to defendants’ request to seal and whether 5 defendants’ request to seal meets the applicable standard. Plaintiff argues that the “compelling 6 reasons” standard applies and asserts that no compelling reasons exist to seal the relevant portions 7 of the FAC. (Opp’n at 11–21.) In contrast, defendants contend that the “good cause” standard is 8 appropriate but argue that even under the “compelling reasons” standard, the names of the non- 9 party deputies appearing in subparagraphs 110(o), (p), and (t) should be sealed or redacted 10 because making such information public serves no other purpose but to humiliate the non-party 11 deputies. (Req. at 3, 9–10.) 12 The court agrees with plaintiff that the “compelling reasons” standard applies here since 13 defendants seek to seal a portion of the FAC, the operative pleading in this case. See PUMA SE 14 v. Brooks Sports, Inc., No. 2:23-cv-00116-LK, 2024 WL 1557660, at *2 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 10, 15 2024) (“Although the Ninth Circuit has not specified whether a party seeking to seal its operative 16 pleading must meet the ‘good cause’ or ‘compelling reasons’ standard, numerous courts within 17 the Circuit have held that the compelling reasons standard applies because a complaint is the 18 foundation of a lawsuit.”) (collecting cases); Williams & Cochrane, LLP v. Quechan Tribe of Fort 19 Yuma Indian Rsrv., No. 3:17-cv-1436-GPC-MDD, 2017 WL 3600417, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 17, 20 2017) (“[D]istrict courts generally conclude that the ‘compelling reasons’ standard applies 21 because the complaint initiates the civil action.”) (collecting cases). 22 In their pending request, defendants point the court to a decision in a similar case in the 23 Eastern District of California, which addressed a request to seal or redact identical allegations to 24 those at issue here. (Req. at 2) (citing Liles v. Cnty. of Sacramento, No. 2:24-cv-00416-KJM- 25 CKD, 2024 WL 1971882 (E.D. Cal. May 3, 2024)). In the Liles decision, the district court 26 granted the defendants’ request to seal in part, finding no compelling reasons to seal or redact the 27 at-issue subparagraphs of the complaint in their entirety but finding compelling reasons to redact 28 ///// 1 the names of the third-party deputies appearing in those subparagraphs. See Liles, 2024 WL 2 1971882, at *2–3. 3 Having reviewed the order issued by Chief Judge Mueller in Liles, the court concurs with 4 the analysis set forth therein and adopts that analysis by reference in this order.1 Like in Liles, the 5 undersigned finds compelling reasons to redact the names of the non-party deputies appearing in 6 the relevant subparagraphs of plaintiff’s complaint. Since plaintiff’s alleged injuries stem from 7 excessive force by a police canine deployed by a law enforcement officer, the incidents involving 8 the non-party deputes in subparagraphs 110(o), (p), and (t) are unrelated to the core issues of this 9 case. Therefore, identifying the deputies by name in those subparagraphs serves improper 10 purposes. See Liles, 2024 WL 1971882, at *2 (“Given the absence of a connection with the 11 factual allegations in this case and the third-party deputies’ non-involvement in this or related 12 matters, the court finds identifying these deputies by name at this point serves improper purposes, 13 including the potential promotion of public scandal.”). 14 Accordingly, the court will grant defendants’ request to redact the names of the non-party 15 deputies in subparagraphs 110(o), (p), and (t) of the FAC. 16 CONCLUSION 17 For the reasons explained above, 18 1. Defendants’ request to seal (Doc. No. 24) is granted; 19 2. The unredacted version of plaintiff’s first amended complaint (Doc. No. 17) is 20 hereby sealed; 21 3. Within seven (7) days from the date of entry of this order, plaintiff shall file a 22 redacted version of his first amended complaint, redacting the names of the two 23 non-party deputies referenced in subparagraphs 110(o), (p), and (t); and 24 ///// 25 ///// 26 27 1 Unlike in Liles, here, defendants seek only to seal or redact the names of the non-party deputies referenced in the pertinent subparagraphs and not the entire subparagraphs. Cf. Liles, 2024 WL 28 1971882, at *2. 1 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to update the docket to reflect that plaintiff's first 2 amended complaint (Doc. No. 17) has been sealed. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. * | Dated: _May 16, 2024 Dab A. 2, sxe 5 DALE A. DROZD ‘ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28