1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 SAN JOSE DIVISION 6 7 GERMAN CARRILLO, et al., Case No. 20-cv-06973-BLF

8 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING 9 v. ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL PORTIONS OF 10 COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ, et al., PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 11 Defendants. [RE: ECF No. 56] 12

13 14 Before the Court is Plaintiff’s administrative motion to file under seal portions of the First 15 Amended Complaint and the declaration of counsel of Defendant in support of the motion. See 16 ECF Nos. 56, 56-1. For the reasons discussed below, the motion is GRANTED. 17 I. LEGAL STANDARD 18 “Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records 19 and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City & Cty. of 20 Honolulu,

, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435

, 597 & n. 7 (1978)). Accordingly, when considering a sealing request, “a ‘strong 22 presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.”

(quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. 23 Ins. Co.,

(9th Cir. 2003)). Parties seeking to seal judicial records relating to 24 motions that are “more than tangentially related to the underlying cause of action” bear the burden 25 of overcoming the presumption with “compelling reasons” that outweigh the general history of 26 access and the public policies favoring disclosure. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp.,

(9th Cir. 2016); Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178–79. 1 mindful of the parties’ right to access those same courts upon terms which will not unduly harm 2 their competitive interest.” Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd.,

, 1228–29 (Fed. 3 Cir. 2013). Records attached to motions that are “not related, or only tangentially related, to the 4 merits of a case” therefore are not subject to the strong presumption of access. Ctr. for Auto 5 Safety,

; see also Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (“[T]he public has less of a need 6 for access to court records attached only to non-dispositive motions because those documents are 7 often unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action.”). Parties moving 8 to seal the documents attached to such motions must meet the lower “good cause” standard of 9 Rule 26(c). Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (internal quotations and citations omitted). This 10 standard requires a “particularized showing,” id., that “specific prejudice or harm will result” if the 11 information is disclosed. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp.,

, 12 1210–11 (9th Cir. 2002); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). “Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated 13 by specific examples of articulated reasoning” will not suffice. Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. 14 Co.,

(9th Cir. 1992). A protective order sealing the documents during 15 discovery may reflect the court’s previous determination that good cause exists to keep the 16 documents sealed, see Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179–80, but a blanket protective order that allows 17 the parties to designate confidential documents does not provide sufficient judicial scrutiny to 18 determine whether each particular document should remain sealed. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(A) 19 (“Reference to a stipulation or protective order that allows a party to designate certain documents 20 as confidential is not sufficient to establish that a document, or portions thereof, are sealable.”). 21 In addition to making particularized showings of good cause, parties moving to seal 22 documents must comply with the procedures established by Civ. L.R. 79-5. Pursuant to Civ. L.R. 23 79-5(b), a sealing order is appropriate only upon a request that establishes the document is 24 “sealable,” or “privileged or protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under 25 the law.” “The request must be narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material, and 26 must conform with Civil L.R. 79-5(d).” Civ. L.R. 79-5(b). In part, Civ. L.R. 79-5(d) requires the 27 submitting party to attach a “proposed order that is narrowly tailored to seal only the sealable 1 sealed,” Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(b), and an “unredacted version of the document” that indicates “by 2 highlighting or other clear method, the portions of the document that have been omitted from the 3 redacted version.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(d). “Within 4 days of the filing of the Administrative 4 Motion to File Under Seal, the Designating Party must file a declaration as required by subsection 5 79-5(d)(1)(A) establishing that all of the designated material is sealable.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1). 6 II. DISCUSSION 7 The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s motion and the declaration submitted by counsel for 8 Defendants. The Court finds that Defendants have articulated compelling reasons to seal certain 9 identified portions of the submitted documents. The Court’s rulings on the sealing requests are set 10 forth in the table below. ECF No. Document Result Reasoning 11 56-4 First Amended GRANTED as The highlighted portions contain 12 Complaint for to highlighted confidential information related to Violation of Civil portions at 9:8- the County’s classification 13 Rights with Pendant 22 procedures and how inmates are State Law Claims housed in particular units. The 14 disclosure of this information could pose a security threat to the 15 jail and to the safety of the 16 inmates. Additionally, disclosure could influence the ongoing 17 prosecution of two other inmates. Shaw Decl. ¶ 5, row 1. 18 56-4 First Amended GRANTED as The highlighted portions contain Complaint for to highlighted confidential information related to 19 Violation of Civil portions at the County’s classification 20 Rights with Pendant 10:26-11:27. procedures and how inmates are State Law Claims housed in particular units. The 21 disclosure of this information could pose a security threat to the 22 jail and to the safety of the inmates. Additionally, disclosure 23 could influence the ongoing 24 prosecution of two other inmates. Shaw Decl. ¶ 5, row 2. 25 26 27 ECF No. Document Result Reasoning 1 56-4 First Amended GRANTED as The highlighted portions contain 2 Complaint for to highlighted confidential information related to Violation of Civil portions at 12:4- two other inmates who are 3 Rights with Pendant 21. currently under criminal State Law Claims prosecution, and disclosure could 4 influence those prosecutions. Shaw Decl. ¶ 5, row 3. 5 56-4 First Amended GRANTED as The highlighted portions contain 6 Complaint for to highlighted confidential information related to Violation of Civil portions at the County’s classification 7 Rights with Pendant 12:26-13:4 procedures and how inmates are State Law Claims housed in particular units. The 8 disclosure of this information could pose a security threat to the 9 jail and to the safety of the 10 inmates. Additionally, disclosure could influence the ongoing 11 prosecution of two other inmates. Shaw Decl. ¶ 5, row 4. 12 56-4 First Amended GRANTED as The highlighted portions contain 13 Complaint for to highlighted confidential information about the Violation of Civil portions at format of the jail’s housing 14 Rights with Pendant 13:19-20 structure, disclosure of which State Law Claims could pose a security threat to the 15 jail. Shaw Decl. ¶ 5, row 5. 56-4 First Amended GRANTED as The highlighted portions contain 16 Complaint for to highlighted confidential information related to 17 Violation of Civil portions at an alleged defective Rights with Pendant 18:26-27 “panic/emergency button” in a 18 State Law Claims particular cell in the jail, disclosure of which could pose a 19 security threat to the jail. Shaw Decl. ¶ 5, row 6. 20 56-4 First Amended GRANTED as The highlighted portions contain 21 Complaint for to highlighted confidential information related to Violation of Civil portions at 20:3- two other inmates who are 22 Rights with Pendant 21:18 currently under criminal State Law Claims prosecution, and disclosure could 23 influence those prosecutions. Shaw Decl. ¶ 5, row 7. 24 56-4 First Amended GRANTED as The highlighted portions contain 25 Complaint for to highlighted confidential information about the Violation of Civil portions at format of the jail’s housing 26 Rights with Pendant 21:21-26 structure, disclosure of which State Law Claims could pose a security threat to the 27 jail. Shaw Decl. ¶ 5, row 8. | || [ECENe. 56-4 First Amended GRANTED as__| The highlighted portions contain 2 Complaint for to highlighted confidential information related to Violation of Civil portions at the personnel records of several 3 Rights with Pendant 21:27-24:10 correctional officers. State Law Claims Additionally, disclosure could 4 influence the ongoing prosecution 5 of two other inmates. Shaw Decl. | 5, row 9. 6 56-4 First Amended GRANTED as__| The highlighted portions contain Complaint for to highlighted confidential information related to 7 Violation of Civil portions at the personnel records of several Rights with Pendant 25:10-25 correctional officers. 8 State Law Claims Additionally, disclosure could 9 influence the ongoing prosecution of two other inmates. Shaw Decl. 10 | 5, row 10. 11 I. ORDER = 2 For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff's Administrative Motion to File Under Seal (ECF No. . 13 56) is GRANTED. 5 14 B15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16

& 17 || Dated: August 17, 2021 □□ hon tn) 18 keh fdr hammer) BETH LABSON FREEMAN 19 United States District Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28