Dunsmore v. State of California

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DARRYL DUNSMORE, ANDREE Case No.: 20-cv-00406-AJB-DDL ANDRADE, ERNEST 12 ARCHULETA, JAMES CLARK, ORDER MOTION TO SEAL 13 ANTHONY EDWARDS, REANNA LEVY, JOSUE LOPEZ, CHRISTOPHER (Doc. No. 944) 14 NORWOOD, JESSE OLIVARES, 15 GUSTAVO SEPULVEDA, MICHAEL TAYLOR, and LAURA ZOERNER, on 16 behalf of themselves and all others 17 similarly situated,, Plaintiffs, 18 v. 19 SAN DIEGO COUNTY SHERIFF’S 20 DEPARTMENT, COUNTY OF SAN 21 DIEGO, SAN DIEGO COUNTY PROBATION DEPARTMENT, and 22 DOES 1 to 20, inclusive, 23 Defendants. 24 25 Before the Court the Court is Plaintiffs’ August 1, 2025 Motion to File Under Seal. 26 (Doc. No. 944.) Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1.d.1, the Court finds this motion suitable 27 for determination on the papers and without oral argument. For the reasons set forth below, 28 the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ Motion to File Under Seal. 1 Courts have historically recognized a “general right to inspect and copy public 2 records and documents, including judicial records and documents.” Nixon v. Warner 3 Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978). “Unless a particular court record is one 4 ‘traditionally kept secret,’ a ‘strong presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.” 5 Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Foltz 6 v. State Farm. Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). In order to 7 overcome this strong presumption, a party seeking to seal a judicial record must articulate 8 justifications for sealing that outweigh the public policies favoring disclosure. See id. at 9 1178–79. “In turn, the court must ‘conscientiously balance[] the competing interests’ of 10 the public and the party who seeks to keep certain judicial records secret.” Id. at 1179 11 (quoting Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1135). 12 A party seeking to seal a judicial record bears the burden of overcoming the strong 13 presumption of access. Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1135. The showing required to meet this burden 14 depends upon whether the documents to be sealed relate to a motion that is “more than 15 tangentially related to the merits of the case.” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 16 809 F.3d 1092, 1102 (9th Cir. 2016). When the underlying motion is more than tangentially 17 related to the merits, the “compelling reasons” standard applies. Id. at 1096–98. When the 18 underlying motion does not surpass the tangential relevance threshold, the “good cause” 19 standard applies. Id. 20 During the July 31, 2025 hearing on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Attorneys’ fees, the Court 21 had concerns regarding the expert witness fees of Syroun Sanossian and requested that 22 Plaintiffs file the Parties’ four expert reports on the docket after the hearing. (Doc. No. 944 23 at 4.) In response to the Court’s request, Plaintiffs seek to file four exhibits under seal— 24 Exhibits A, B, C, and D to the concurrently filed Supplemental Declaration of Gay 25 Crosthwait Grunfeld in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Interim Attorneys’ Fees and 26 Costs. (Doc. No. 944 at 3.) Exhibits A, B, and C are the expert reports of Plaintiffs’ expert 27 Syroun Sanossian of SZS Engineering, Inc., Defendants’ expert Paul Joelson, and 28 Defendants’ expert Julian Martinez. (Id.) Exhibit D is the Rebuttal Expert Report of Syroun 1 || Sanossian. (/d.) 2 Plaintiffs’ motion for attorneys’ fees has no effect on, and is only tangentially related 3 the underlying merits of the case. See Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1099 (9th Cir. 4 ||2016); see, e.g., Strike 3 Holdings, LLC yv. Doe, No. 21-CV-63-AJB-AHG, 2023 WL 5 11994280 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 11, 2023), aff'd, No. 23-2782, 2024 WL 4601590 (9th Cir. Oct. 6 2024) (applying good cause standard because issues in attorneys’ fees motion were 7 tangentially related to the merits of the case); Jn re Anthem, Inc. Data Breach Litig., 8 15-MD-02617-LHK, 2018 WL 3960068, at *33 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 17, 2018) (same); 9 || MacDonald v. Ford Motor Co., No. 13-CV-02988-JST, 2016 WL 7826647, at *2 (N.D. 10 Mar. 7, 2016) (same). Therefore, the “good cause” standard applies. 11 The purpose of submitting the reports is for the Court to review and assess the 12 ||reasonableness of the SZS Engineering invoices. (Doc. No. 944 at 4.) Portions of the 13 |/reports refer to locations within the jail facilities and other matters that may qualify for 14 || protection under the parties’ protective order. The Court finds the requisite good cause 15 exists to file the aforementioned exhibits under seal. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS 16 || Plaintiffs’ Motion to File Under Seal. (Doc. No. 944.) 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 ||Dated: August 6, 2025 © 19 Hon, Anthony J.Battaglia 20 United States District Judge 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28