1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 OTIS BRUCE, Case No. 23-cv-03931-JST

8 Plaintiff, ORDER ON ADMINISTRATIVE 9 v. MOTIONS TO SEAL

10 COUNTY OF MARIN, et al., Re: ECF Nos. 73, 79 Defendants. 11

12 13 Plaintiff Bruce Otis has filed two administrative motions to file documents under seal. 14 These motions explain that the material sought to be sealed has been “deemed confidential by 15 Defendants, likely due to concerns about third-party privacy rights related to non-party employee 16 complaints.” ECF No. 73 at 2; ECF No. 79 at 2. The Court therefore construes the motions as 17 motions to seal another party’s material. As such, Defendants must file a responsive statement 18 and/or declaration explaining why the redactions are necessary within seven days of the date of 19 this order or the motions will be denied. Civ. L.R. 79-5(f)(3). 20 In addition, the Court notes that some of the redaction requests may not qualify as 21 “narrowly tailored to seal only the sealable material” because they are overly lengthy or unrelated 22 to the protection of complaining employees’ privacy. Civ. L.R. 79-5(c)(3). A “strong 23 presumption in favor of access” applies to all documents other than grand jury transcripts or pre- 24 indictment warrant materials. Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu,

, 1178 25 (9th Cir. 2006). In filing their declaration in support, Defendants should consider the scope of the 26 redactions. Should Defendants determine that more narrowly tailored redactions are warranted, 27 / / / 1 they should file a proposed order reflecting those redactions as well as public and sealed copies of 2 || the material at issue reflecting the new proposed redactions. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED.

4 Dated: November 12, 2025 5 JON S. TIGA 6 nited States District Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12

13

© 15 16

= 17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28