Wesley Smith, et al. v. Officer M. Wheat, et al.
Wesley Smith, et al. v. Officer M. Wheat, et al.
Trial Court Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 WESLEY SMITH, et al., No. 2:21-cv-01859-DC-CKD 12 Plaintiffs, 13 v. ORDER GRANTING THE PARTIES’ RENEWED STIPULATED REQUEST TO 14 OFFICER M. WHEAT, et al., FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL 15 Defendants. (Doc. No. 61) 16 17 On October 3, 2025, Plaintiffs and Defendants filed a stipulated request to file under seal 18 certain exhibits attached to the declarations of Eugene Chittock (Doc No. 48-3) and Paul Edwards 19 (Doc. No. 48-5) filed in support of Plaintiffs’ opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary 20 judgment. (Doc. No. 50.) On November 10, 2025, the court granted the parties’ stipulated request 21 in part and denied it in part. (Doc. No. 55.) Specifically, the court granted the parties’ stipulated 22 request except as to exhibits G and H to the declaration of Eugene Chittock and exhibits B and C 23 to the declaration of Paul Edwards. (Id. at 4–5.) As to exhibit G to the Chittock declaration 24 (extensive portions of deposition transcripts) and exhibits B and C to the Edwards declaration 25 (copies of Edwards’ expert reports), the court found that the parties “ha[d] not narrowly tailored 26 their request as required.” (Id. at 4.) As to exhibit H to the Chittock declaration (notice of adverse 27 action), the court found that the parties “did not address any basis for filing under seal the notice 28 of adverse action.” (Id.) The court directed the parties to either file a renewed request as to those 1 documents or file them on the public docket within fourteen days of entry of that order. (Id. at 5.) 2 On December 15, 2025, the parties filed the pending renewed stipulated request to file 3 documents under seal.1 (Doc. No. 61.) For the reasons explained below, the court will grant the 4 parties’ renewed stipulated request to file documents under seal. 5 The court recognizes that all documents filed with the court are presumptively public. San 6 Jose Mercury News, Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Court,
187 F.3d 1096, 1103 (9th Cir. 1999) (“It is well- 7 established that the fruits of pretrial discovery are, in the absence of a court order to the contrary, 8 presumptively public.”). However, courts may permit a party to file under seal documents, such 9 as briefing in support of (or in opposition to) motions for summary judgment and exhibits thereto, 10 where that party shows “compelling reasons” to support maintaining secrecy of those documents. 11 Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu,
447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006); Ctr. for Auto Safety 12 v. Chrysler Grp., LLC,
809 F.3d 1092, 1101(9th Cir. 2016) (applying “compelling reasons” 13 standard to motions that are “more than tangentially related to the merits”). “In general, 14 ‘compelling reasons’ sufficient to . . . justify sealing court records exist when such ‘court files 15 might . . . become a vehicle for improper purposes,’ such as the use of records to gratify private 16 spite, promote public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets.” Kamakana, 17 447 F.3d at 1179 (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc.,
435 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). 18 “The mere fact that the production of records may lead to a litigant’s embarrassment, 19 incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will not, without more, compel the court to seal its 20 records.”
Id.“[A]n order sealing the documents must be narrowly drawn to seal only those 21 portions of the record that, upon a balancing of the relevant interests, ought to be sealed.” Acad. 22 of Motion Picture Arts & Scis. v. GoDaddy.com, Inc., No. 10-cv-03738-AB-CW,
2015 WL 2312698301, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 22, 2015) (collecting cases). 24 In the renewed stipulated request, the parties seek to redact portions of exhibits B and C to 25 the Edwards declaration that contain excerpts of California Department of Corrections and 26 Rehabilitation training plans and post orders, and excerpts of the confidential incident report 27 1 The parties requested, and the court granted, an extension of time to file the renewed request. 28 (Doc. Nos. 56, 58.) Thus, the renewed request was timely filed. 1 | relating to the incident at issue in this dispute. (Doc. No. 61 at 2.) Additionally, as to exhibit G to 2 | the Chittock declaration, the parties seek to redact only limited portions of the deposition of Justin 3 | Byers in which he reads aloud excerpts of California Department of Correction and Rehabilitation 4 | training plans. (/d. at 3.) The parties have otherwise agreed to withdraw their request to file under 5 | seal the remaining portions of those exhibits, as well as exhibit H to the Chittock declaration. 6 | Plaintiff has filed the documents which they no longer seek to file under seal on the public 7 | docket. (Doc. Nos. 59-60.) 8 The court finds compelling reasons exist to justify filing under seal the portions of the 9 | expert reports and deposition transcripts that quote from the California Department of Corrections 10 | and Rehabilitation trainings and incident response plans. See Castellar v. Mayorkas, No. 17-cv- 11 | 00491-BAS-AHG,
2021 WL 3678440, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 19, 2021) (granting request to file 12 | Customs and Border Patrol training guide and migrant protection protocols under seal); 13 | Fernandez v. Duarte, No. 3:22-cv-00446-BAS-VET,
2025 WL 77056, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 10, 14 | 2025) (granting request to file sections of opposition brief under seal because the “information, if 15 revealed publicly, would create a significant security threat to inmates, staff, the correctional 16 || facility, and the public at large.”). Further, the parties’ proposed redactions are narrowly tailored 17 || to encompass only that confidential material. 18 Accordingly, 19 1. The parties’ renewed stipulated request to file under seal (Doc. No. 61) is 20 GRANTED; and 21 2. Within three (3) days from the date of entry of this order, Plaintiffs shall email 22 PDF copies of the unredacted versions of the subject documents to 23 ApprovedSealed @caed.uscourts.gov for filing under seal on the docket. 24 95 IT IS SO ORDERED. □ 26 | Dated: _December 28, 2025 RY Oo Dena Coggins 27 United States District Judge 28
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Reference
- Status
- Unknown