Dew v. City of Seaside ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 LORI DEW, et al., Case No. 19-cv-06009-HSG 8 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO 9 v. SEAL 10 CITY OF SEASIDE, et al., Re: Dkt. No. 28 11 Defendants. 12 Pending before the Court is an administrative motion, in which Plaintiffs, Lori Dew, and 13 minors G.V., W.V., B.V., and L.V., ask the Court to (1) appoint guardian ad litem for Plaintiffs 14 G.V., W.V., B.V., and L.V.; and (2) seal the petitions for guardians ad litem, the verifications and 15 consent of Guardians, Maryann Gould and Marilyn Corpus, and the declaration of Jeremy I. 16 Lessem, which were attached in support of the motion. See Dkt. No. 28. The Court granted the 17 motion on March 10, 2020, appointing Maryann Gould as guardian ad litem for Plaintiff G.V., a 18 minor and appointing Marilyn Corpus as guardian ad litem for Plaintiff W.V., B.V., and L.V., all 19 minors. See Dkt. No. 37. For the reasons detailed below, the Court further GRANTS the motion 20 to seal. 21 I. LEGAL STANDARD 22 Courts generally apply a “compelling reasons” standard when considering motions to seal 23 documents. Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing Kamakana 24 v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006)). “This standard derives from 25 the common law right ‘to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial 26 records and documents.’” Id. (quoting Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178). “[A] strong presumption in 27 favor of access is the starting point.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178 (quotation omitted). To 1 dispositive motion must “articulate compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that 2 outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure, such as the 3 public interest in understanding the judicial process” and “significant public events.” Id. at 1178– 4 79 (quotation omitted). “In general, ‘compelling reasons’ sufficient to outweigh the public’s 5 interest in disclosure and justify sealing court records exist when such ‘court files might have 6 become a vehicle for improper purposes,’ such as the use of records to gratify private spite, 7 promote public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets.” Id. at 1179 8 (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978)). “The mere fact that the 9 production of records may lead to a litigant’s embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further 10 litigation will not, without more, compel the court to seal its records.” Id. 11 The Court must “balance[] the competing interests of the public and the party who seeks to 12 keep certain judicial records secret. After considering these interests, if the court decides to seal 13 certain judicial records, it must base its decision on a compelling reason and articulate the factual 14 basis for its ruling, without relying on hypothesis or conjecture.” Id. Civil Local Rule 79-5 15 supplements the compelling reasons standard set forth in Kamakana: the party seeking to file a 16 document or portions of it under seal must “establish[] that the document, or portions thereof, are . 17 . . entitled to protection under the law . . . The request must be narrowly tailored to seek sealing 18 only of sealable material.” Civil L.R. 79-5(b). 19 Records attached to nondispositive motions, however, are not subject to the same strong 20 presumption of access. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179. Because such records “are often 21 unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action,” parties moving to seal 22 must meet the lower “good cause” standard of Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 23 Id. at 1179–80 (quotation omitted). This requires only a “particularized showing” that “specific 24 prejudice or harm will result” if the information is disclosed. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. 25 Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210–11 (9th Cir. 2002); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). 26 “Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples of articulated reasoning” will 27 not suffice. Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992) (quotation I. ANALYSIS Because Plaintiffs’ motion to appoint a guardian ad litem is a nondispositive motion, the 2 Court applies the lower “good cause” standard to Plaintiffs’ request to file certain exhibits attached 3 to the motion under seal. After reviewing the materials, the Court finds good cause to seal these 4 documents. The documents include the full names of minors involved in this case, which are 5 specifically entitled to privacy protection by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2(a)(3). 6 Additionally, these documents are only relevant to the motions for appointment of a guardian ad 7 litem, and are not relevant to the merits of the case. The Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion to 8 seal these documents. 9 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 Dated: 4/15/2020 12 HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. 4 United States District Judge 15 16 = 17 Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28