Doe 1 v. McAleenan ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 SAN JOSE DIVISION 7 8 JANE DOE 1, et al., Case No. 18-cv-02349-BLF (VKD) 9 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING 10 v. ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL 11 CHAD WOLF, et al., Re: Dkt. No. 305 Defendants. 12 13 In connection with the parties’ discovery dispute concerning de-designation (Dkt. No. 14 306), plaintiffs filed an administrative motion to file portions of the parties’ joint discovery letter 15 brief under seal. Dkt. No. 305. Defendants filed a response pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79- 16 5(e)(1). Dkt. No. 311. Having considered the parties’ submissions, the Court grants the 17 administrative motion, as set forth below. 18 There is a strong presumption in favor of access by the public to judicial records and 19 documents accompanying dispositive motions that can be overcome only by a showing of 20 “compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings.” Kamakana v. City & Cty. of 21 Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178–79 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 22 However, the presumption does not apply equally to a motion addressing matters that are only 23 “tangentially related to the merits of a case.” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 24 1092, 1101 (9th Cir. 2016), cert. denied sub nom. FCA U.S. LLC v. Ctr. for Auto Safety, 137 S. Ct. 25 38 (2016). A litigant seeking to seal documents or information in connection with such a motion 26 must meet the lower “good cause” standard of Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 27 Id. at 1098–99; Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179–80. 1 defendants’ designation of certain discovery materials as “Highly Confidential/Attorneys’ Eyes 2 || Only” or “Confidential.” The underlying discovery dispute does not address the merits of the 3 || parties’ claims or defenses, but rather whether the Court should order defendants reproduce certain 4 || documents with a lower level of confidentiality designation. While some or all of the material to 5 be sealed may be relevant to the merits of the case, the matters to be decided by the Court are not. 6 || The Court therefore applies the “good cause” standard of Rule 26(c). 7 The portions of the joint discovery letter brief sought to be sealed concern material that 8 || defendants have designated “Highly Confidential/Attorneys’ Eyes Only” or “Confidential” based 9 on the law enforcement privilege and possible implications of national security. Whether these 10 || portions should be sealed is an issue raised in the parties’ discovery dispute, which the Court has 11 yet to resolve. Accordingly, the Court grants plaintiffs’ administrative motion and permits sealing a 12 || of the following materials: Document Portion to be Sealed 5 15 Joint Discovery Letter | Page 4, line 36 Brief re De- Page 5, lines 1-3, 22, 30-31 5 16 Designation (Dkt. No. | Page 6, lines 1, 27 206) Page 7, lines 3, 9, 10-11, 19-20, 22-25, 26, 31- («17 32, 33, 37-38, 40-41, 41-42, 44 Page 8, lines 3-4, 4-5 Z 18 Page 9, line 31 19 Page 10, lines 8-9, 17-19 Page 11, lines 1, 16-18, 22, 28-29, 33, 34-35, 20 footnote 8 Page 12, lines 9-10, 10-11, 11, 13-14, 16, 17, 21 20, 21, 28, 29-30, 30, 32, 32-33, footnote 13 Page 13, lines 4-5, 8-9, 10-11, 13, 15, 18, 18-19, 22 19-20, 22-23, 32- 33, 34, 35-36, 37, 42-43 3 Page 14, lines 4-6, 7-8, footnote 15, footnote 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 Dated: March 19, 2020 26 ee □ 27 VIRGINIA K. DEMARCHI 28 United States Magistrate Judge