1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 SAN JOSE DIVISION 6 7 DESHAWN LEE CAMPBELL, Case No. 12-cv-06089-BLF

8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING SEALING 9 v. MOTIONS

10 RANDY GROUNDS, [Re: ECF Nos. 204, 206, 207] 11 Defendant.

12 13 The parties recently submitted briefing on (1) Petitioner’s claim No. 10 for habeas relief 14 and (2) supplemental authorities since 2012. See ECF Nos. 203-209. On July 22, 2022, Petitioner 15 filed a motion to file under seal portions of his (1) Memorandum of Points and Authorities in 16 Support of Claim No. 10 and (2) Exhibits in Support of Claim No. 10. ECF No. 204. On August 17 26, 2022, Respondent filed a motion to file under seal portions of his Memorandum of Points and 18 Authorities in Opposition to Claim No. 10. ECF No. 206. And on September 9, 2022, Petitioner 19 filed a motion to file under seal portions of his (1) Reply brief re: Claim No. 10 and (2) Reply 20 brief re: Supplemental Authorities. ECF No. 207. On October 6, 2022, the Court issued an Order 21 requiring the parties to submit charts for their sealing motions pursuant to the Court’s Standing 22 Orders. ECF No. 210. Respondent filed his chart on October 21, 2022, ECF No. 213, and 23 Petitioner filed his chart on October 23, 2022, ECF No. 214. 24 The Court has considered the motions and supporting declarations. For the following 25 reasons, the motions to seal are GRANTED. 26 I. LEGAL STANDARD 27 “Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records 1 Honolulu,

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

, 597 & n.7 (1978)). Consequently, access to motions and their attachments that are 3 “more than tangentially related to the merits of a case” may be sealed only upon a showing of 4 “compelling reasons” for sealing. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC,

, 5 1101–102 (9th Cir. 2016). Filings that are only tangentially related to the merits may be sealed 6 upon a lesser showing of “good cause.”

. 7 In addition, in this district, all parties requesting sealing must comply with Civil Local 8 Rule 79-5. That rule requires, inter alia, the moving party to provide “the reasons for keeping a 9 document under seal, including an explanation of: (i) the legitimate private or public interests that 10 warrant sealing; (ii) the injury that will result if sealing is denied; and (iii) why a less restrictive 11 alternative to sealing is not sufficient.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(c)(1). Further, Civil Local Rule 79-5 12 requires the moving party to provide “evidentiary support from declarations where necessary.” 13 Civ. L.R. 79-5(c)(2). And the proposed order must be “narrowly tailored to seal only the sealable 14 material.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(c)(3). 15 II. DISCUSSION 16 Petitioner and Respondent seek to seal portions of their briefing on claim No. 10 and 17 supplemental authorities, and these documents are more than tangentially related to the case. The 18 parties therefore must show compelling reasons for the requested sealing. 19 The parties seek to seal information about the identity of a witness who provided post-trial 20 testimony to protect the safety of that individual. See ECF Nos. 204-1 ¶ 2, 206-1 ¶ 2, 207-1 ¶ 2; 21 213, 214. The Court finds that the parties have met the compelling reasons standard for sealing 22 the identified information. See Unknown Party v. Ariz. Bd. of Regents, No. CV-18-01623-PHX- 23 DWL,

, at *5 (D. Ariz. Oct. 27, 2021) (finding compelling reasons standard met 24 for “information that, if made public, would reveal the identities of the parties or witnesses who 25 are likely to suffer severe harm if their identities are made public”); Bey v. City of Oakland, No. 26 14-cv-01626-JSC,

, at *18 (N.D. Cal. July 30, 2019) (sealing information 27 regarding “identities of witnesses”). And the proposed redactions are narrowly tailored to seal 1 sealed:

2 ECF No. Document Portions to Seal Ruling 3 204-3 Petitioner’s Redactions at: 2:8-11, GRANTED, as Memorandum of Points 13-18; 5:4- 6, 9-11, 14- containing information 4 and Authorities in 16; 7:11, 22, 24, 28; 8:1- that could put at risk the Support of Claim No. 10 28; 9:1-21, 25-28; 10:1- safety of one or more 5 4, 6, 8-21, 23- 27; 11:1- individuals if made 7, 9-10, 14-15, 19-22, public. 6 24-28; 12:1-27; 13:1-28; 7 14:1-27; 15:1-5, 7- 13, 16-17, 19-28; 16:1-28; 8 17:1-28; 18:1-28; 19:1- 28; 20: 1-20, 23-26; 21: 9 1-12, 16, 18-24; 22:1, 3- 24, 27; 23: 4-5, 11, 20- 10 25, 27; 24:1, 4-9, 13-15, 11 18-20, 22-27; 25:1-28; 26:1-14, 19, 21, 25-28; 12 27:1-24, 27-28; 28:4-12, 14-15, 17, 19-21, 24-28; 13 29:1-6, 9; 30:20; 31: 2, 4-28; 32:1-20, 22-28; 14 33:1-5, 7, 9, 14-25, 27- 15 28; 34:1, 3-27; 35:1-4, 6, 9-14, 19, 21-27; 36:1-8. 16 204-4 Petitioner’s Exhibits in All of Exhibits 1-5, and GRANTED, as Support of Claim No. 10 those redactions at: 2:6-7; containing information 17 (Part 1) 6:7-9, 11, 13-15; 11:6-7, that could put at risk the 18 9, 14- 21; 19:3, 5, 7-25; safety of one or more 20:1, 3, 5, 9-27; 21: 1-26; individuals if made 19 22:6-17, 23-28; 23:1-2, 4, public. 7, 11- 12, 15, 17-21, 23- 20 27; 24:1, 3-4, 6; 26: 9; 74:15-16, 18-19, 22, 24- 21 25; 75:1-2, 4-5, 10-11, 22 13, 16-28; 76:1-9, 11, 14, 16-18, 20-23, 27-28; 23 77:1, 3-4, 8, 16, 18-21, 23-28; 78:1-11, 14, 18- 24 19, 21- 23, 25-28; 79:1, 3, 4-6, 10, 12, 18, 21- 28; 25 80:1, 3, 4, 11, 13-16, 18, 26 21-23; 81:9-10, 12-17, 22, 24-28; 82:1-11; 27 83:13-15; 86:1-2, 5-6, 8, 23; 911 :28; 92:1, 5-7, 9, 1 26, 28; 93:1, 3, 5-7, 9, 13, 2 18, 25-26; 100:16-18, 21, 23-28; 101:2-12, 14, 17, 3 19, 21; 102: 4-5, 7-11, 18- 19, 21, 22-27; 103:23-24; 4 110: 16-18, 23-25. 204-4 Petitioner’s Exhibits in Redactions at: 1:1-2, 4- GRANTED, as 5 Support of Claim No. 10 24; 4:8, 15-16, 18-28; containing information 6 (Part 2) 5:1-28; 6:1-14; 9:2-3; that could put at risk the 60:18, 20-28; 61:1-28; safety of one or more 7 62:1-28; 63:1- 28; 64:1- individuals if made 28; 65:1-28; 66:1-28; public. 8 67:1- 28; 68:1-28; 69:1- 17, 19-28; 70-1-18; 71:1- 9 28; 72:1-28; 73:1-28; 10 74:1-28; 75:1-28; 76:1- 28; 77:1-20, 22-26; 78:1- 11 28; 79:1-14, 18, 25; 80:3- 4, 15- 21, 23, 25, 27; 12 81:2-3, 6-11, 15-19, 22- 25, 27; 82:1-17, 19-20, 13 22-23, 27-28; 83:1-28; 14 84:1-7, 13, 16, 22-28; 85:1- 3, 5-9, 12-25, 27; 15 90:14-20, 22-25; 91: 7; 94:1, 3-6, 10, 12, 16-21, 16 26-28; 95: 1, 6-18, 24-28; 17 96:1-20; 24-28; 97:1-2, 5- 6, 8, 16, 20-27, 29; 98:9, 18 11-18, 22, 24; 99:15-16, 18-24; 100:1-24, 29-30, 19 32; 101:1-14; 103:10-18; 104:3-4; 105:6, 13; 20 106:10, 13-25; 107:1-26, 21 28; 108:1-28; 109:1-28; 110:2, 4-5, 11-28, 30-31; 22 111:8, 10-11, 14-28; 112:1-17, 20, 24-27; 23 113:1-7, 9, 14, 17-28; 114:1-7, 10-17; 115:21- 24 24, 28; 116:1-3. 25 206-3 Respondent’s Redactions at: p. i: 7-8; p. GRANTED, as Memorandum of Points 1: 3-9, 15-18, 22-27; p. 2: containing information 26 and Authorities in 27; p. 3: 1-6, 14-19, 27; that could put at risk the Opposition to Claim No. pp. 4 through 9: all lines; safety of one or more 27 10 p. 10: 1-8, 14-28; p. 11: individuals if made 1 28; p. 13: 10- 28; p. 14: 1- 17; p. 15: none; p. 16: 25- 2 27; p. 17: 1-2, 25; p. 18: 1-5; p. 19: 14-28; p. 20: 1- 3 15, 19-21; p. 21: 3-28; p. 22: 1-12. 4 207-3 Petitioner’s Reply re Redactions at: 4:12, 14- | GRANTED, as 5 Claim No. 10 15, 17-18; 5:16-25; 7:4, | containing information 8-9; 8:24; 9:1, 28; 10:1- 6, | that could put at risk the 6 8-9, 14-18, 21-22, 28; | safety of one or more 11:6; 12:1- 16, 18-23, 25, | individuals if made 7 28; 13:3-5, 8, 17, 20, 23- | public. 28; 14:1-2; 16:4, 7-20, 8 23-28; 17:1-2, 4, 7-16, 9 18-28; 18:1-4, 9-10, 12, 15, 20-22, 25-28; 19:1-2, 10 4, 6-7, 10-15, 20, 23-24. 207-4 Petitioner’s Reply re Redactions at: 7:9, 18,25; | GRANTED, as 11 Supplemental Authorities | 8:3- 5, 11, 18-21. containing information that could put at risk the 12 safety of one or more 413 individuals if made public.

14 I. ORDER _ 1S For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the sealing motions are

16 || GRANTED. = 17 Dated: October 24, 2022 tn) 19 MV. 20 BETH LABSON FREEMAN United States District Judge 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28