1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 WINSTON DURRELL SETTRINI, Case No.: 3:20-cv-02273-RBM-BGS 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 13 v. SEAL 14 CITY OF SAN DIEGO, et al., [Doc. 24] 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 Presently before the Court is a motion to seal filed by Defendants City of San Diego, 19 Anthony Duncan, and Conner Quintanilla (“Defendants”). (Doc. 24.) For the reasons 20 discussed below, Defendants’ motion is DENIED. 21 I. LEGAL STANDARD 22 “[T]he courts of this country recognize a general right to inspect and copy public 23 records and documents, including judicial records and documents.” Nixon v. Warner 24 Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978). “Unless a particular court record is one 25 ‘traditionally kept secret,’ a ‘strong presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.” 26 Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing Foltz v. 27 State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). “The presumption 28 of access is ‘based on the need for federal courts, although independent—indeed, 1 particularly because they are independent—to have a measure of accountability and for the 2 public to have confidence in the administration of justice.’” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler 3 Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 4 1044, 1048 (2d Cir. 1995)). 5 A party seeking to seal a judicial record bears the burden of overcoming the strong 6 presumption of public access. Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1135. The showing required to meet this 7 burden depends upon whether the documents to be sealed relate to a motion that is “more 8 than tangentially related to the merits of the case.” Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1102. 9 When the underlying motion is more than tangentially related to the merits, the 10 “compelling reasons” standard applies. Id. at 1096–98. When the underlying motion does 11 not surpass the tangential relevance threshold, the “good cause” standard applies. Id. 12 The “compelling reasons” standard is generally satisfied if the moving party can 13 show that the “‘court files might have become a vehicle for improper purposes,’ such as 14 the use of records to gratify private spite, promote public scandal, circulate libelous 15 statements, or release trade secrets.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (quoting Nixon, 435 16 U.S. at 598). The decision to seal documents is “one best left to the sound discretion of 17 the trial court” upon consideration of “the relevant facts and circumstances of the particular 18 case.” Nixon, 435 U.S. at 599. 19 II. DISCUSSION 20 Defendants seek to seal: (1) Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of Anthony Duncan in 21 Support of Defendants’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment; and (2) Exhibit 2 to the 22 Declaration of Connor Quintanilla in Support of Defendants’ Motion for Partial Summary 23 Judgment. (See Doc. 24 at 2.) Both exhibits are videos retrieved from the police body 24 cameras worn by Defendants Duncan and Quintanilla on the night of the incident with 25 Plaintiff Winston Durrell Settrini (“Plaintiff”) at issue in this case. (Doc. 24-1 at 4.) 26 Because Defendants’ underlying summary judgment motion is “more than tangentially 27 related to the merits of the case,” the compelling reasons standard applies. Ctr. for Auto 28 Safety, 809 F.3d at 1102. 1 Defendants state the documents to be sealed “refer to or contain confidential body- 2 worn camera videos of the subject incident (arrest of Plaintiff Winston Durrell Settrini), 3 and the details surrounding his detention and arrest.” (Doc. 24-1 at 4.) Defendants argue 4 sealing is appropriate because the documents are subject to the parties’ stipulated protective 5 order (see Doc. 18), and because the documents “contain the confidential, private 6 information of the Defendant Officers to include specific information regarding their 7 identities” and “Official Information acquired in confidence by a police officer in the 8 course of his duty that was not open, or officially disclosed, to the public prior to the time 9 the claim of privilege was made.” (Doc. 24-1 at 4.) Defendants also argue the videos 10 contain “private, personal information of witnesses to the incident as noted above that is 11 not generally known to the public” that, if disclosed, “could cause irreparable harm and/or 12 violate the rights of privacy of Plaintiff and the Defendant Officers.” (Id.) Finally, 13 Defendants argue that “due to the graphic and sensational nature of the contents of the 14 videos (to wit: and alleged police excessive force incident) there is a distinct possibility 15 that their contents, if made public, will be used for improper purposes by media outlets and 16 or private individual.” (Id.) 17 At the outset, the Court notes that one party’s designation of a document as 18 “Confidential” does not, standing alone, demonstrate that the documents should be shielded 19 from public access. See, e.g., Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1136 (“[T]he presumption of access is not 20 rebutted where, as here, documents subject to a protective order are filed under seal as 21 attachments to a dispositive motion.”); In re Packaged Seafood Prod. Antitrust Litig., No. 22 15-MD-2670 JLS (MDD), 2020 WL 6395595, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 2, 2020) (“That a 23 document is designated confidential pursuant to a protective order is of little weight when 24 it comes to sealing court filings.”); In re Incretin Mimetics Prod. Liab. Litig., No. 25 13MD2452 AJB MDD, 2014 WL 1912731, at *2 (S.D. Cal. May 13, 2014) (“Though the 26 Parties themselves may have stipulated to the confidential nature of this information, the 27 ‘compelling reasons’ standard is invoked even if the motion, or its attachments, were 28 previously filed under seal or protective order.”) (citing Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179). 1 Accordingly, a sealing order will be issued only if the Court is satisfied Defendants have 2 otherwise satisfied the compelling reasons standard. 3 Here, Defendants have not met their burden of showing compelling reasons to seal 4 the documents at issue. “Defendants do not assert any exception to the presumption of 5 public access or offer any authority that supports sealing material merely because its 6 contents are sensitive and particularly where, as here, the footage contains evidence that is 7 highly probative to the case.” Narciso v. Cnty. of San Diego, No. 20CV116-LL-MSB, 8 2022 WL 3447509, at *11 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 17, 2022). Courts in this District have denied 9 similar requests to seal body camera footage where the Plaintiff alleges excessive force 10 claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See id. (denying motion to seal “where the body camera 11 captured footage of police officers allegedly hurting a citizen” finding videos “of 12 significance to the public, who has an interest in transparency of law enforcement activity 13 and its use of force”); Cheatum v. City of San Diego, No. 18-CV-1703-BTM-AGS, 2019 14 WL 3817954, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 14, 2019) (“[T]he Court is concerned that such records 15 are of significance to the public, who has an interest in the activity of law enforcement and 16 its use of force.”); Lee v. City of San Diego, No. 18CV0159 W (BLM), 2019 WL 117775, 17 at *3 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 7, 2019) (denying motion to seal body camera footage filed in 18 excessive force case, finding Defendants “fail[ed] to provide any support as to how videos 19 of an arrest made on a crowded sidewalk contain information that if disclosed to the public 20 could cause harm or violate anyone’s rights”). The Court finds that the arrest at issue in 21 this case is of significant interest to the public. Additionally, the Court does not find that 22 sealing is necessary to protect the identifies of the police officers, as Defendants Duncan 23 and Quintanilla have already been named in the public docket. 24 III. CONCLUSION 25 Accordingly, the Court DENIES Defendants’ motion to seal. (Doc. 24.) 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 / / / ] IT ISSO ORDERED. 2 DATE: October 11, 2022 _ Berni, Hoty 4 HON. RUTH BERMUDEZ MONTENEGRO UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28