Acedo v. County of San Diego ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DANIEL ACEDO, Case No.: 17-CV-2592 JLS (JLB) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING REQUEST TO 13 v. REMOVE ORDER FROM LEXIS NEXIS DATABASE 14 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO; PAUL RICHARDS; CARLOS OLMEDA; 15 (ECF No. 68) CAROLYN COLVIN; CALIFORNIA 16 DEPARTMENT OF VITAL STATISTICS; CALIFORNIA 17 DIRECTOR OF SOCIAL SERVICES; 18 DIRECTOR OF THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CHILD SUPPORT 19 SERVICES; and BOARD OF THE 20 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, 21 Defendants. 22 23 24 Presently before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Remove Order from Lexis Nexis 25 Database (ECF No. 68). Plaintiff contends that the Court has sealed the case and therefore 26 any Orders from the Court should not be published and accessible by anyone who is not a 27 case participant. Id. at 1–2. Plaintiff points to the Court’s July 16, 2018 Order in which 28 the Court stated that “the Clerk of Court restricted access to documents in this case to only 1 || the parties participating in the case.” Jd. (quoting ECF No. 29). Plaintiff contends that the 2 sensitive nature of the case warrants keeping the matter entirely confidential. Id. 3 “[T]he courts of this country recognize a general right to inspect and copy public 4 ||records and documents, including judicial records and documents.” Nixon v. Warner 5 || Commce’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978). “Unless a particular court record is one 6 || ‘traditionally kept secret,’ a ‘strong presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.” 7 || Kamakana y. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing Foltz 8 || v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). “The presumption 9 ||of access is ‘based on the need for federal courts, although independent—indeed, 10 || particularly because they are independent—to have a measure of accountability and for the 11 || public to have confidence in the administration of justice.’” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler 12 || Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting United States v. Amodeo,7\ F.3d 13 1044, 1048 (2d Cir. 1995)). 14 Here, the Court has not sealed the entire case and does not find that such action is 15 ||necessary or appropriate. Both Parties have sought the Court’s permission to file juvenile 16 || records and other sensitive documents under seal and the Court has granted those requests 17 ||when appropriate. The Court recognizes the sensitive nature of the facts in this case; 18 || however, these considerations do not outweigh the strong presumption in favor of access. 19 || The remaining documents, including this Court’s Orders, shall remain accessible to the 20 || public. The Court therefore DENIES Plaintiff's Motion. 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 ||Dated: January 30, 2020 . tt f te 23 on. Janis L. Sammartino United States District Judge 25 26 27 28