Hutchins v. Lizarraga ( 2020 )

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 SAN JOSE DIVISION 6 7 KENNETH HUTCHINS, Case No. 17-cv-03921-BLF 8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING 9 v. ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL 10 JOE A. LIZARRAGA, 11 Defendant. 12 13 On August 18, 2020, Petitioner, by and through his counsel of record, filed an ex parte 14 administrative motion to file under seal the declaration of appointed counsel, which counsel filed 15 to support her ex parte application for replacing appointed counsel. See Mot., ECF 38; Appl., ECF 16 37. For the reasons stated below, the administrative motion to seal at ECF 38 is GRANTED. 17 I. LEGAL STANDARD 18 “Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records and 19 documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of Honolulu, 20 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 21 & n.7 (1978)). Consequently, filings that are “more than tangentially related to the merits of a 22 case” may be sealed only upon a showing of “compelling reasons” for sealing. Ctr. for Auto 23 Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1101-02 (9th Cir. 2016). Filings that are only 24 tangentially related to the merits may be sealed upon a lesser showing of “good cause.” Id. at 25 1097; see also Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (“[T]he public has less of a need for access to court 26 records attached only to non-dispositive motions because those documents are often unrelated, or 27 only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action.”). Parties moving to seal the 1 Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (internal quotations and citations omitted). This standard requires a 2 || “particularized showing,” id., that “specific prejudice or harm will result” if the information is 3 disclosed. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 4 || 2002); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). 5 II. DISCUSSION 6 The Court has reviewed the sealing motion and declaration submitted in support thereof. 7 || This document subject to the motion to seal is only tangentially related to the merits of Petitioner’s 8 || habeas claim and thus must meet the good cause standard under Rule 26(c). The Court finds that 9 Petitioner’s counsel has articulated compelling reasons of attorney-client privilege and attorney 10 || work product doctrine to seal the declaration and finds the request is narrowly tailored. 11 || 1. CONCLUSION 12 For the reasons stated above, Petitioner’s administrative motion to seal at ECF 38 is 5 13. || GRANTED. IT IS SO ORDERED. A 16 || Dated: August 19, 2020 kom hh han tn) [SV FAW MEANS BETH LABSON FREEMAN Z 18 United States District Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28