Wasito v. San Diego, City of ( 2019 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JANAR JOSEPH WASITO, Case No.: 19-CV-2395 JLS (JLB) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING WITHOUT 13 v. PREJUDICE MOTION TO SEAL 14 CITY OF SAN DIEGO; ANTHONY (ECF No. 1) ELLIOT; OFFICER NICHOLES; 15 MICHAEL TANSEY; TAYLOR 16 HEARNSBURGER, ESQ.; KARA ELLION, ESQ., 17 Defendants. 18 19 20 Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Janar Joseph Wasito’s Complaint (“Compl.,” 21 ECF No. 1), which contains a “Motion to Seal this Litigation under Title 50, U.S.C., in 22 order to preserve Lieutenant Wasito’s Ability to Serve the Country in the future” (“Mot.”).1 23 24 25 1 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7(b), “[a] request for a court order must be made by motion.” Accordingly, Mr. Wasito’s “Motion,” which is contained in his Complaint, see Compl. at 14, 19, is not 26 properly before the Court. See, e.g., Cook v. Brewer, No. CV 11-557-PHX-RCB, 2011 WL 1119641, at *1 (D. Ariz. Mar. 28), aff’d, 649 F.3d 915 (9th Cir. 2011). Nonetheless, in recognition of Mr. Wasito’s 27 pro se status, the Court construes his seventh cause of action as a motion to seal. See, e.g., Ferdik v. 28 Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1261 (9th Cir. 1992), as amended (May 22, 1992) (recognizing the importance 1 Compl. at 19. Having carefully considered Mr. Wasito’s Complaint, his Motion, and the 2 relevant law, the Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Mr. Wasito’s Motion. 3 LEGAL STANDARD 4 “[T]he courts of this country recognize a general right to inspect and copy public 5 records and documents, including judicial records and documents.” Nixon v. Warner 6 Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978). “Unless a particular court record is one 7 ‘traditionally kept secret,’ a ‘strong presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.” 8 Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing Foltz 9 v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). “The presumption 10 of access is ‘based on the need for federal courts, although independent—indeed, 11 particularly because they are independent—to have a measure of accountability and for the 12 public to have confidence in the administration of justice.’” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler 13 Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 14 1044, 1048 (2d Cir. 1995)). 15 A party seeking to seal a judicial record bears the burden of overcoming the strong 16 presumption of access. Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1135. The showing required to meet this burden 17 depends upon whether the documents to be sealed relate to a motion that is “more than 18 tangentially related to the merits of the case.” Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1102. When 19 the underlying motion is more than tangentially related to the merits, the “compelling 20 reasons” standard applies. Id. at 1096–98. When the underlying motion does not surpass 21 the tangential relevance threshold, the “good cause” standard applies. Id. 22 “In general, ‘compelling reasons’ sufficient to outweigh the public’s interest in 23 disclosure and justify sealing court records exists when such ‘court files might have 24 become a vehicle for improper purposes,’ such as the use of records to gratify private spite, 25 promote public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets.” Kamakana, 26 447 F.3d at 1179 (quoting Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598). However, “[t]he mere fact that the 27 production of records may lead to a litigant’s embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure 28 to further litigation will not, without more, compel the court to seal its records.” Id. (citing 1 Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1136). The decision to seal documents is “one best left to the sound 2 discretion of the trial court” upon consideration of “the relevant facts and circumstances of 3 the particular case.” Nixon, 435 U.S. at 599. 4 ANALYSIS 5 Mr. Wasito appears to request that the entirety of his Complaint be filed under seal. 6 “The Ninth Circuit has not explicitly stated the standard—good cause or compelling 7 reasons—that applies to the sealing of a complaint, but . . . courts have held that the 8 compelling reasons standard applies because a complaint is the foundation of a 9 lawsuit.” In re Google Inc. Gmail Litig., No. 13-MD-02430-LHK, 2013 WL 5366963, at 10 *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 25, 2013). 11 Here, Mr. Wasito’s Motion is brought “under Title 50, U.S.C., in order to preserve 12 Lieutenant Wasito’s Ability to Serve the Country in the Future,”2 see Compl. at 19, and 13 “to avoid any harm to his future employment or value to the Nation” because he “desire[s] 14 to work in classified, law enforcement, and national security positions for the Federal 15 government.” Id. at 14. The Ninth Circuit has held that concerns of this type do not satisfy 16 the compelling reasons standard. See, e.g., Oliner v. Kontrabecki, 745 F.3d 1024, 1026 17 (9th Cir. 2014) (affirming district court’s denial of motion to seal record of bankruptcy 18 proceedings where “[t]he only reasons provided for sealing the records—to avoid 19 embarrassment or annoyance to [the defendant] and to prevent an undue burden on his 20 professional endeavors—are not ‘compelling’”); Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (“The mere 21 fact that the production of records may lead to a litigant’s embarrassment, incrimination, 22 or exposure to further litigation will not, without more, compel the court to seal its 23 records.”). 24 Mr. Wasito’s Motion is also overbroad. “Any order sealing documents should be 25 ‘narrowly tailored’ to remove from public view only the material that is protected.” Ervine 26 27 2 Title 50 of the United States Code concerns War and National Defense. A review of Mr. Wasito’s 28 Complaint, which hinges upon an allegedly unlawful arrest and search of his vehicle on March 14, 2019, 1 Warden, 214 F. Supp. 3d 917, 919 (E.D. Cal. 2016) (citing Press-Enter. Co. v. Super. 2 || Ct., 464 U.S. 501, 513 (1984)). Here, by contrast, Mr. Wasito appears to seek leave to file 3 || the entirety of his Complaint under seal, including several exhibits that already appear to 4 ||be publicly available, including tables of countries by gross domestic product based on 5 || purchasing power parity, see Compl. at 24—25; the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act 6 || of 2004, see Compl. at 55-58; and reports from the Congressional Research Services. See 7 |{Compl. at 59-67. Accordingly, Mr. Wasito’s Motion also must be denied as overbroad. 8 || See, e.g., Bangert v. Cnty. of Placer, No. 2:17-CV-1667 KJN P, 2019 WL 358518, at *13 9 || (E.D. Cal. Jan. 29, 2019) (denying motion to seal as overbroad where the parties seeking 10 ||to seal did “not discuss any of the individual exhibits attached to the [filing], which 11 |}include[d] public documents such as an article from the Sacramento Bee’’). 12 Because Mr. Wasito has failed to meet his burden of establishing “compelling 13 |/reasons” sufficient to outweigh the public’s interest in narrowly tailored portions of his 14 Complaint, the Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Mr. Wasito’s Motion. 15 CONCLUSION 16 In light of the foregoing, the Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE 17 ||Mr. Wasito’s Motion (ECF No. 1). Within fourteen (14) days of the electronic docketing 18 || of this Order, Mr. Wasito SHALL FILE either (1) a renewed motion to seal that meets the 19 || “compelling reasons” standard and is narrowly tailored to those specific portions of his 20 ||Complaint that merit protection, or (2) an unredacted copy of his Complaint. See In re 21 ||SeraCare Life Scis., Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 05-CV-2335-H (CAB), 2007 WL 9776550, at *1 22 ||(S.D. Cal. June 4, 2007). 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 25 Dated: December 16, 2019 tt 26 pen Janis L. Sammartino United States District Judge 27 28