Morton v. County of San Diego
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Michael M. Anello (author)
Analysis
Defendants moved to file 45 exhibits under seal and to file 11 audio exhibits non-electronically in support of their summary judgment motion. The court granted both motions, finding compelling reasons to seal the sensitive documents and that the audio files were not capable of electronic filing.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion to file Exhibits 1-45 under seal granted“Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the motion and DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to file Exhibits 1–45 (Doc. No. 227) UNDER SEAL.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the strong presumption of public access and the 'compelling reasons' standard from Ninth Circuit precedent. The movants identified the exhibits as confidential law enforcement documents, personnel files, and medical records, which are generally recognized as sensitive information warranting protection from public disclosure. The court's finding that these constitute compelling reasons to overcome the presumption is consistent with the law and the record recited. |
Motion for leave to allow non-electronic filing of eleven audio exhibits granted“Additionally, the Court finds that the eleven audio file exhibits are not capable of electronic filing and therefore GRANTS the motion for leave to allow their non-electronic filing.” | agree with court The court granted the motion based on the finding that the exhibits were not capable of electronic filing, citing the district's administrative policies. This is a procedural determination within the court's discretion to manage its docket and filings. The order provides a specific deadline and instructions for manual filing, which is appropriate. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the applicable legal standard for sealing documents in the Ninth Circuit, citing the strong presumption of public access and the requirement for 'compelling reasons' when the documents are related to the merits. The court applies this standard to the specific facts provided by the movants (confidential law enforcement, personnel, and medical records) and reaches a defensible conclusion. The second ruling regarding non-electronic filing is a routine procedural matter handled appropriately.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARILYN MORTON, et al., Case No. 21-cv-1428-MMA-DDL 12 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 13 v. FILE UNDER SEAL; AND 14 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, et al., [Doc. No. 226] 15 Defendants. GRANTING MOTION FOR LEAVE 16 TO ALLOW NON-ELECTRONIC 17 FILING 18 [Doc. No. 231] 19 20 21 On June 14, 2024, Defendants the County of San Diego, Hosanna Alto, and Janine 22 Sparks filed a renewed motion for leave to file Exhibits 1–45 in support of their summary 23 judgment motion under seal. Doc. No. 226. Thereafter, they filed a motion seeking leave 24 to allow the non-electronic filing of eleven audio file exhibits. Doc. No. 231. Their 25 motions are unopposed to date. 26 When presented with a request to file a document under seal, the Court begins with 27 the strong presumption in favor of the “general right to inspect and copy public records 28 and documents, including judicial records and documents.” Nixon v. Warner 1 Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 n.7 (1978); see also Kamakana v. City and 2 Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). “The presumption of access is 3 ‘based on the need for federal courts, although independent—indeed, particularly because 4 they are independent—to have a measure of accountability and for the public to have 5 confidence in the administration of justice.’” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 6 809 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 7 1048 (2d Cir. 1995)). When a party moves to file under seal a motion or documents 8 attached to a motion, the focus is on the underlying motion and whether it is “more than 9 tangentially related to the underlying cause of action.” Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 10 1099. If the motion is more than tangentially related to the merits, like here, the movant 11 must show compelling reasons for overcoming the presumption in favor of public access. 12 See id. at 109–99. 13 According to the County, Alto, and Sparks, compelling reasons exist to seal 14 Exhibits 1–45 because of the risk they will be used for improper purposes. Doc. No. 226 15 at 10. Additionally, they explain that these exhibits consist of confidential law 16 enforcement documents and reports, government personnel files, and medical records. 17 Id. The Court finds that these exhibits contain sensitive information, not generally 18 accessible to the public, and that the need to keep these records and information private 19 so as to protect various individual’s privacy and protect against the risk of improper use 20 are compelling reasons to file them under seal. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the 21 motion and DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to file Exhibits 1–45 (Doc. No. 227) UNDER 22 SEAL. 23 Additionally, the Court finds that the eleven audio file exhibits are not capable of 24 electronic filing and therefore GRANTS the motion for leave to allow their non- 25 electronic filing. The Court DIRECTS Defendants to manually file the following 26 exhibits in accordance with this district’s Electronic Case Filing Administrative Policies 27 and Procedures Manual § 2.k as soon as practicable and in no event later than 28 July 15, 2024: 1 ||| Audio | App. File Name Bates Ex. No. | Evidence Ex. No. 3 OL. 30A 5-12-20 1741 (EL) SD02059 - 10.36.101.25- SD02059 4 31B 0b7685980a2465 1929f68ad965 1 lbfc8.mp3 5-15-20 1915 (MM) SD02088 - 10.36.144.70- SD02088 5 31C 1b3d940f0a249046573fa9cdda00fdba.mp3 6 ||) 03. 30C 5-16-20 1907 (EL) SD02093 - 10.36.148.13- SD02093 31E 205f5acb0a24940d7£264672d65939b5.mp3 7 WII 04. 30D 5-16-20 1923 (MM) SD02094 - 10.36.148.13- SD02094 31F 206d63fe0a24940d7£26467272ba02df.mp3 5-17-20 0713 (MM) SD02072 - 10.36.101.27- SD02072 9 31G 22£74a690a2465 1b73874£257dfd9573.mp3 10 30F 5-17-20 0800 (EL) SD02075 - 10.36.101.27- SD02075 31H 2322c3cf0a24651b73874f25alaS5a7ac.mp3 1 5-12-20 0410 (MM) SD02090 - 10.36.144.70- SD02090 2 088fbcc70a249046 1 8de5a42e40fc868.mp3 8 sD 5-15-20 1949 (EL) SD02055 - 10.36.101.23- SD02055 13 1 bSeabce20a24651711a78895331e2199.mp3 14 36 2020-05-19 Phone call, Det. Sisto to M. Morton | SD01848 SD 01848 13 37 2020-05-19 Phone call, Det. Sisto to E. Luong SD | SD 01847 16 01847 11. 38 2020-05-26 Phone call, Det. Sisto to E. Luong SD | SD 01863 17 01863 18 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 || Dated: June 26, 2024 21 Maikuk lu of O hills: 22 HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO 3 United States District Judge 24 25 26 27 28