1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 C. JAY SMITH, Case No. 20-cv-04335-HSG

8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO SEAL 9 v. Re: Dkt. No. 146 10 T. DUKE, et al., 11 Defendants.

12 13 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff C. Jay Smith’s administrative motion to seal materials 14 filed in support of Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Dkt. No. 146. For the reasons 15 detailed below, the Court GRANTS the motion. 16 I. LEGAL STANDARD 17 Courts generally apply a “compelling reasons” standard when considering motions to seal 18 documents. Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n,

(9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Kamakana 19 v. City & Cty. of Honolulu,

, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006)). “This standard derives from the 20 common law right ‘to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records 21 and documents.’” Id. (quoting Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178). “[A] strong presumption in favor of 22 access is the starting point.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178 (quotations omitted). To overcome this 23 strong presumption, the party seeking to seal a judicial record attached to a dispositive motion 24 must “articulate compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the 25 general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure, such as the public interest in 26 understanding the judicial process” and “significant public events.” Id. at 1178–79 (quotations 27 omitted). “In general, ‘compelling reasons’ sufficient to outweigh the public’s interest in 1 vehicle for improper purposes,’ such as the use of records to gratify private spite, promote public 2 scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets.” Id. at 1179 (quoting Nixon v. 3 Warner Commc’ns, Inc.,

(1978)). “The mere fact that the production of records 4 may lead to a litigant’s embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will not, 5 without more, compel the court to seal its records.”

6 The Court must “balance[] the competing interests of the public and the party who seeks to 7 keep certain judicial records secret. After considering these interests, if the court decides to seal 8 certain judicial records, it must base its decision on a compelling reason and articulate the factual 9 basis for its ruling, without relying on hypothesis or conjecture.”

Civil Local Rule 79-5 10 supplements the compelling reasons standard set forth in Kamakana: the party seeking to file a 11 document or portions of it under seal “must explore all reasonable alternatives to filing documents 12 under seal, minimize the number of documents filed under seal, and avoid wherever possible 13 sealing entire documents . . . .” Civil L.R. 79-5(a). The party must further explain the interests 14 that warrant sealing, the injury that will result if sealing is declined, and why a less restrictive 15 alternative to sealing is not sufficient. See Civil L.R. 79-5(c). 16 Records attached to nondispositive motions must meet the lower “good cause” standard of 17 Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as such records “are often unrelated, or only 18 tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action.” See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179–80 19 (quotations omitted). This requires a “particularized showing” that “specific prejudice or harm 20 will result” if the information is disclosed. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 21

, 1210–11 (9th Cir. 2002); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). “Broad allegations of 22 harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples of articulated reasoning” will not suffice. Beckman 23 Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co.,

(9th Cir. 1992) (quotation omitted). 24 II. DISCUSSION 25 Because the document that Plaintiff seeks to seal is attached to a dispositive motion, the 26 Court applies the compelling reasons standard. Plaintiff seeks to seal portions of Exhibit F to the 27 Declaration of Eric Miersma, filed in support of Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. 1 confidential correctional records. /d. Plaintiff acknowledges that this document has been, and 2 || remains, available on the public docket. See Dkt. No. 146 at 1. However, she still seeks to seal 3 specific portions of this Exhibit. Plaintiff argues that its continued availability on the public 4 || docket places her at increased risk of physical violence while she remains incarcerated. See id.; 5 || see also Dkt. No. 146-1 (“Orthwein Decl.”) at 9§ 6-9. Specifically, Plaintiff explains that portions 6 || of the records falsely indicate that Plaintiff committed a sex crime. Jd. Although erroneous, 7 Plaintiff argues that if discovered by other incarcerated people, she will be at increased risk of 8 || physical violence. See Orthwein Decl. at J] 7-9. Plaintiff also points out that as a transgender 9 woman she is already a member of one of the most vulnerable populations in CDCR custody. See 10 || id. at§ 8. 11 On the other hand, the public’s interest in this information is minimal. Plaintiffs criminal 12 || history is not at issue in this case, and the Court did not rely on the information that Plaintiff seeks 5 13 to redact in ruling on the motion for summary judgment. See Dkt. No. 142. Moreover, the parties 14 || have settled this case, so Plaintiffs criminal history and classification will not be relevant in any 3 15 || future motion or trial either. The Court finds that Plaintiff has presented compelling reasons to 16 || seal this information and GRANTS the motion. 2 17 || 1. CONCLUSION Z 18 The Court GRANTS the motion to seal portions of Exhibit F to the Declaration of Eric 19 || Miersma, filed in support of Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. Dkt. No. 146. The 20 || Clerk is directed to lock Dkt. No. 109 so it is no longer publicly available on the docket. Plaintiff 21 is DIRECTED to coordinate with Defendants to file a public version of Defendant’s motion for 22 || summary judgment and accompanying exhibits, including Mr. Miersma’s declaration with the 23 proposed redactions to Exhibit F. Plaintiff shall file this redacted version on the docket within 24 seven days of this order. 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 || Dated: 11/5/2025 27 Abaipeerl 5 MUI). 28 HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. United States District Judge