1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOSEPH DAVALL, Case No.: 20-CV-1968 JLS (KSC) CDCR #AW-8294, 12 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S Plaintiff, 13 MOTION TO SEAL THE RECORD vs. 14 A. CORDERO; D. WHITE; (ECF No. 84) 15 WHITMAN, 16 Defendants. 17 18 19 Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Joseph Davall’s Motion to Seal the Record 20 (“Mot.,” ECF No. 84). On February 2, 2023, this Court issued an order denying Plaintiff’s 21 Motion for Summary Judgment and granting Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, 22 which terminated this action. See ECF No. 83. Now, Plaintiff wishes that the record of 23 this case be sealed as the “sensitive information” contained within is accessible by the 24 public, which has allegedly resulted in “numerous” attempts on his life at the prison in 25 which he is currently confined. Mot. at 1. Plaintiff also requests that the Court “order the 26 Prison legal record company ‘Lexus Nexus’ (sic) to erase the efile in [his] case.” Id. The 27 Court DENIES the Motion. 28 / / / 1 First, this case remains closed; accordingly, the Court cannot entertain Plaintiff’s 2 requests unless and until the case is reopened. Plaintiff has pointed to no authority to the 3 contrary. 4 Second, even if this case were not closed, Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that 5 sealing the entire record of this case is appropriate. “[T]he courts of this country recognize 6 a general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records 7 and documents.” Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc.,

(1978). “Unless a 8 particular court record is one ‘traditionally kept secret,’ a ‘strong presumption in favor of 9 access’ is the starting point.” Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu,

, 1178 10 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co.,

(9th 11 Cir. 2003)). “The presumption of access is ‘based on the need for federal courts, although 12 independent—indeed, particularly because they are independent—to have a measure of 13 accountability and for the public to have confidence in the administration of justice.’” Ctr. 14 for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC,

(9th Cir. 2016) (quoting United 15 States v. Amodeo,

(2d Cir. 1995)). 16 A party seeking to seal a judicial record bears the burden of overcoming the strong 17 presumption of access. Foltz,

. “Where the party seeks to seal case files 18 in their entirety, as [Plaintiff] requests here, courts have required that party to meet the high 19 threshold of showing that ‘compelling reasons’ support the need for secrecy.” Rust-Oleum 20 Corp. v. NIC Indus., Inc., No. 1:18-CV-01655-CL,

, at *1 (D. Or. Feb. 21 21, 2019). Under the compelling reasons standard, “the party must articulate[ ] compelling 22 reasons supported by specific factual findings, that outweigh the general history of access 23 and the public policies favoring disclosure, such as the public interest in understanding the 24 judicial process.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178–79 (internal quotations and citations 25 omitted) (alterations in original). “In general, ‘compelling reasons’ sufficient to outweigh 26 the public’s interest in disclosure and justify sealing court records exist when such ‘court 27 files might have become a vehicle for improper purposes,’ such as the use of records to 28 / / / 1 gratify private spite, promote public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade 2 secrets.”

at 1179 (quoting Nixon,

). 3 Here, Plaintiff has not specified what “sensitive information” must be restricted from 4 public view, nor has Plaintiff presented any factual material that supports his allegations 5 that the public nature of the case has resulted in attempts on his life. Moreover, Plaintiff’s 6 underlying state court criminal trial was widely reported in local news media, and 7 subsequent actions related to Plaintiff’s conviction, such as his petition for federal habeas 8 relief, remain matters of public record.1 Indeed, the instant action has been accessible to 9 the public for roughly two-and-a-half years. “Thus, it would serve no purpose to . . . seal 10 the case file here when the information regarding [Plaintiff’s] underlying crimes of 11 conviction and his identity are already public.” Reed v. Paramo, No. CV 15-5636-CAS 12 (JEM),

, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 25, 2018). 13 Finally, the Court declines to permanently enjoin the display of records related to 14 this case on electronic databases such as LexisNexis. Such a request is in direct conflict 15 with the Court’s preference for public access to judicial records and documents. Moreover, 16 Plaintiff has not addressed any of the factors that would justify a permanent injunction. 17 “To obtain a permanent injunction, a plaintiff must show: ‘(1) that it has suffered an 18 irreparable injury; (2) that remedies available at law, such as monetary damages, are 19 inadequate to compensate for that injury; (3) that, considering the balance of the hardships 20 between the plaintiff and defendant, a remedy in equity is warranted; and (4) that the public 21 interest would not be disserved by a permanent injunction.’” MGM Resorts Int’l v. 22 Unknown Registrant of www.imgmcasino.com, No. 2:14-CV-1613-GMN-VCF,

5682783, at *1 (D. Nev. Sept. 23, 2015). 24 / / / 25 / / / 26

27 1 Given the nature of Plaintiff’s request, the Court finds it inappropriate and unnecessary to cite to 28 1 In sum, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motion because the case is closed and Plaintiff 2 || has provided no legal authority supporting his requests. The Court advises Plaintiff that so 3 || long as this case remains closed, further filings may be rejected by this Court. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 Dated: May 1, 2023 . tt f Le 6 on. Janis L. Sammartino 7 United States District Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4