Fitzgerald v. Pollard ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 RHONDA FITZGERALD, an individual, Case No.: 20cv848 JM(SBC) and on behalf of all persons similarly 11 situated, ORDER ON MOTION TO SEAL 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 MARCUS POLLARD et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Presently before the court is Plaintiff Rhonda Fitzgerald’s Application for Leave to 18 Conditionally File Documents Under Seal in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial 19 Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 117), filed in connection with her Motion for Summary 20 Judgment (Doc. No. 116). For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff’s motion is denied 21 without prejudice. 22 Legal Standard 23 “[T]he courts of this country recognize a general right to inspect and copy public 24 records and documents, including judicial records and documents.” Nixon v. Warner 25 Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978). “Unless a particular court record is one 26 ‘traditionally kept secret,’ a ‘strong presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.” 27 Kamakana v. City & Cty. Of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (citations 28 omitted). “The presumption of access is ‘based on the need for federal courts, although 1 independent—indeed, particularly because they are independent—to have a measure of 2 accountability and for the public to have confidence in the administration of justice.’” Ctr. 3 for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC., 809 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting 4 United States v. Amodeo (Amodeo II), 71 F.3d 1044, 1048 (2d Cir. 1995)). Thus, a party 5 seeking to seal a judicial record bears the burden of overcoming the strong presumption of 6 access. Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178 (citing Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 7 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). The showing required to meet this burden depends upon 8 whether the documents to be sealed relate to a motion that is “more than tangentially related 9 to the merits of the case.” Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1101. When the underlying 10 motion is more than tangentially related to the merits, the “compelling reasons” standard 11 applies. Id. at 1097-99. When the underlying motion does not surpass the tangential 12 relevance threshold, the “good cause” standard applies. Id. The decision to seal documents 13 is “one best left to the sound discretion of the trial court” upon consideration of “the 14 relevant facts and circumstances of the particular case.” Nixon, 435 U.S. at 599. 15 Analysis 16 “Any order sealing documents should be ‘narrowly tailored’ to remove from public 17 view only the material that is protected.” Wasito v. City of San Diego, No. 19-CV-2395 18 JLS (JLB), 2019 WL 6877554, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 16, 2019) (quoting Ervine v. Warden, 19 214 F. Supp. 3d 917, 919 (E.D. Cal. 2016)). Here, rather than narrowly tailor her request, 20 Plaintiff has sought to seal 13 documents, including 12 exhibits totaling 112 pages simply 21 because Defendants have designated them as “CONFIDENTIAL - FOR COUNSEL 22 ONLY.” This is not sufficient to justify sealing. Once protected discovery documents are 23 made part of a dispositive motion, “they lose their status of being raw fruits of discovery,” 24 and “no longer enjoy protected status ‘without some overriding interests in favor of keeping 25 the discovery documents under seal.” Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1136. 26 Moreover, Plaintiff has failed to sufficiently tie their stated reason for sealing to each 27 of the twelve (12) individual exhibits. Based on the filing, the court is left attempting to 28 decipher how the “CONFIDENTIAL – FOR COUNSEL ONLY” rationale applies to each 1 individual exhibit. However, it is Plaintiff’s responsibility to provide specific facts in 2 support of their request to each exbibit. The court declines to take on this responsibility. 3 See Mendell v. Am. Med. Response, Inc., No. 10-CV-01227-BAS-KSC, 2021 WL 398486, 4 at *2 (S.D. Cal. Feb 3, 2021) (“At a minimum, the party moving to seal multiple documents 5 ‘must demonstrate specific prejudice or harm flowing from the disclosure of [each] specific 6 document.”) (quoting Al Otro Lado, Inc. v. McAleenan, No. 17-CV-02366-BAS-KSC, 7 2019 WL 6220898, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 2019)). 8 It is also clear to the court, by Plaintiff’s counsel’s own admission, see Doc. No. 117 9 at 21, that the parties did not meaningfully meet and confer prior to filing the motion to 10 seal. 11 In light of the foregoing, Plaintiff’s Application for Leave to Conditionally File 12 Documents Under Seal in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment 13 (Doc. No. 117) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Plaintiff may re-apply for a 14 sealing order on or before January 23, 2024. Should Plaintiff elect to do so, she is directed 15 to meet and confer with Defendants and agree on the narrowest possible sealing order. 16 The renewed motion must include, for each item sought to be sealed, in a table 17 format: (1) the docket number of the provisionally sealed version of the document; (2) the 18 declaration and exhibit number; (3) the name of the document; (4) the specific portion(s) 19 of the document sought to be filed under seal, identified by page and line numbers where 20 possible; and (5) the reasons for seeking sealing of the material. The reasons provided 21 must be specific and tailored to the portion(s) of the documents sought to be sealed. 22 Plaintiff should also file, concurrent with the renewed motion, all necessary declarations 23 /// 24 /// 25 26 27 1 Plaintiff states in her motion: “[c]ounsel for Plaintiff attempted to meet and confer with counsel for Defendants on this issue, but counsel for Defendants did not respond.” Doc. 28 | || establishing that the information sought to be sealed is sealable. 2 IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 || Dated: January 17, 2024 Piel 4 ite 5 n. Jeffrey. Miller nited States District Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28