Davis v. County of Solano

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA LEOLA DAVIS, et al., No. 2:24-cv-02161-DC-SCR 12 Plaintiffs, 13 v. ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST TO SEAL COUNTY OF SOLANO, et al., (Doc. No. 37) 15 Defendants.

17 On June 11, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a notice of their request to seal the June 9, 2025 declaration of their counsel, Attorney Brandon Yee, which is submitted in support of Plaintiffs’ counsel’s motion to withdraw as counsel in this action. (Doc. No. 37.) Attorney Yee explains that his declaration should be filed under seal because it outlines Plaintiffs’ counsel’s reasoning for withdrawing, and those reasons “involve a disagreement of material facts between Plaintiffs’ Counsel and Plaintiffs,” and “[t]he discussion leading to the material disagreement are protected by client attorney privilege.” (Doc. No. 37-1 at 2.) Further, Attorney Yee’s declaration also discloses counsel’s advice to the Plaintiffs,” and Attorney Yee believes that “[i]f this information is disclosed to the public, or to opposing counsel, it would put Plaintiffs at an unfair disadvantage.” (Doc. No. 37 at 3.)

27 The court recognizes that all documents filed with the court are presumptively public. San Jose Mercury News, Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Court, 187 F.3d 1096, 1103 (9th Cir. 1999) (“It is well- | established that the fruits of pretrial discovery are, in the absence of a court order to the contrary, || presumptively public.”).

3 Generally, there are two standards governing requests to seal documents. Pintos v. Pac. | Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 677 (9th Cir. 2010).

5 [JJudicial records attached to dispositive motions [are treated] differently from records attached to non-dispositive motions. Those 6 who seek to maintain the secrecy of documents attached to dispositive motions must meet the high threshold of showing that 7 “compelling reasons” support secrecy. A “good cause” showing under Rule 26(c) will suffice to keep sealed records attached to non- 8 dispositive motions.

9 | Kamakana vy. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1180 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing Foltz v. State | Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135-36 (9th Cir. 2003)). Here, because Plaintiffs seek | to seal a declaration filed in support of a motion to withdraw as counsel, which is not a dispositive | motion, the “good cause” standard applies.

13 Having reviewed the June 9, 2025 declaration of Attorney Yee, which contains | information protected by the attorney-client privilege, the court finds Plaintiffs have shown good | cause exists to permit the filing of that declaration under seal. The court will therefore grant | Plaintiffs’ request to file under seal Attorney Yee’s declaration in support of Plaintiffs’ counsel’s || motion to withdraw as counsel of record.

18 Accordingly, 19 1. Plaintiffs’ request to seal (Doc. No. 37) is GRANTED; 20 2. The declaration of Plaintiffs’ counsel, Attorney Brandon Yee, dated June 9, 2025, 21 shall be filed under seal, to be accessed only by the court; and 22 3. Plaintiffs shall send a PDF copy of Attorney Brandon Yee’s declaration dated June 23 9, 2025 via email to ApprovedSealed @caed.uscourts.gov for filing under seal on 24 the docket in this case.

26 IT IS SO ORDERED. □ | Dated: _June 13, 2025 DUC Dena Coggins 28 United States District Judge