Black v. City of San Diego

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 LANCE BLACK, Case No.: 21-cv-01990-RBM-JLB 13 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ 14 v. EX PARTE MOTION TO FILE OR LODGE DOCUMENTS UNDER 15 CITY OF SAN DIEGO, et al., SEAL 16 Defendants. [ECF No. 119] 17 18 19 Before the Court is Defendants’ Ex Parte Motion to File or Lodge Documents Under 20 Seal (“Motion to Seal”). (ECF No. 119.) Defendants seek to file under seal the 21 Declaration of Jacqueline J. McQuarrie in support of Defendants’ Opposition (ECF No. 22 118) to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Supplemental Responses to Discovery (ECF No. 23 109). (Id. at 2.) No Opposition has been filed. 24 Defendants contend that the Declaration of Jacqueline J. McQuarrie in support of 25 Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Discovery 26 (“Declaration”) should be sealed because it contains confidential information that may 27 cause irreparable harm. (ECF No. 119-2 at 2.) The Declaration includes the San Diego 28 Police Department Internal Affairs (“IA”) investigation records, describing the individuals 1 involved and details of the complaints. (ECF No. 119-1 at 3.) Defendants state that the IA 2 investigation records are confidential officer personnel files protected by the official 3 information privilege. (Id. at 4.) They also assert that the Declaration contains “private, 4 personal information that if disclosed to the public could cause irreparable harm and/or 5 violate the rights of privacy of the Defendant Officers, third-party officers, and citizen 6 complainants.” (Id.) Defendants argue that the Declaration should be filed under seal so 7 that the Court can “adequately conduct [its] inquiry prior to the public release of any 8 confidential and privileged information contained within the records” because “if 9 Defendants were required to file the [Declaration] without the benefit of a sealing Order, 10 this would undermine the Court’s determination as to the confidentiality of the records and 11 would make the determination moot.” (Id. at 3–4.) 12 “Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public 13 records and documents, including judicial records and documents,’” which is “justified by 14 the interest of citizens in ‘keep[ing] a watchful eye on the workings of public agencies.’” 15 Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (Nixon v. 16 Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597, n.7, 598 (1978)). As such, a party seeking to 17 seal a judicial record attached to a dispositive motion must “articulate[] compelling reasons 18 supported by specific factual findings” that can surmount the “strong presumption in favor 19 of access to court records.” Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 20 (9th Cir. 2003). 21 However, a different standard applies to non-dispositive motions. Kamakana, 447 22 F.3d at 1179. “Non[-]dispositive motions ‘are often unrelated, or only tangentially related, 23 to the underlying cause of action,’ and, as a result, the public’s interest in accessing 24 dispositive materials does ‘not apply with equal force’ to non-dispositive materials.” Pintos 25 v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Kamakana, 447 F.3d 26 at 1179). “In light of the weaker public interest in non[-]dispositive materials, [courts] 27 apply the ‘good cause’ standard when parties wish to keep them under seal.” Pintos, 605 28 F.3d at 678. “A ‘good cause’ showing will suffice to seal documents produced in 1 discovery.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1180; see also Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. 2 General Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1212–13 (9th Cir. 2002) (noting that when a party 3 attaches a sealed discovery document to a nondispositive motion, the usual presumption of 4 the public’s right of access is rebutted). 5 For good cause to exist, the party seeking protection bears the burden of showing 6 specific prejudice or harm will result.” Phillips, 307 F.3d at 1210–11 (citing Beckman 7 Indus., Inc. v. International Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992) (holding that “broad 8 allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples or articulated reasoning, do not 9 satisfy the Rule 26(c) test”), and San Jose Mercury News, Inc., 187 F.3d at 1102 (holding 10 that to gain a protective order the party must make “particularized showing of good cause 11 with respect to any individual document”)). 12 Here, the Opposition is a non-dispositive discovery motion that is not directly related 13 to the merits of the case.1 (See ECF No. 118.) Accordingly, the good cause standard 14 applies. The Court finds that Defendants have established good cause to seal the 15 Declaration because they have shown that specific prejudice or harm will result unless the 16 document and/or information is sealed. Moreover, the Court finds that the sealing request 17 is narrowly tailored to only portions of the Declaration that contain details of the IA 18 investigation records related to officer personnel files. Accordingly, the Court finds good 19 /// 20 /// 21 22 23 1 The Ninth Circuit does not intend for the descriptive terms of “dispositive” and “nondispositive” to be mechanical classifications where “the right of public access would 24 be limited solely to literally dispositive motions.” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., 25 LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1098 (9th Cir. 2016). Rather “public access will turn on whether the motion is more than tangentially related to the merits of a case.” Id. at 1101; see also, In 26 re Midland National Life Insurance Company Annuity Sales Practices Litigation, 686 F.3d 27 1115, 1120 (9th Cir. 2012) (finding that a Daubert motion should be treated as dispositive since it “pertain[ed] to central issues bearing on defendant’s summary judgment motion”). 28 1 || cause to GRANT the Defendants’ Motion to Seal. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to 2 || file under seal the Proposed Document lodged at ECF No. 120. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 ||Dated: January 13, 2025 - n. Jill L. Burkhardt 6 ited States Magistrate Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28