Raiser v. San Diego County
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- On appeal
- Aaron Raiser v. County of San Diego (2023-02-08) — affirmed — the Ninth Circuit's later ruling on this docket
- Panel
- Gonzalo P. Curiel (author)
Analysis
The court considered Plaintiff's ex parte application to file CLETS documents under seal to comply with a protective order. The court denied the motion, finding no compelling reason to seal the documents given the plaintiff's waiver of privacy and the public nature of the information, and ordered the documents filed publicly.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Denial of Plaintiff's Ex Parte Application to Seal CLETS Documents“Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs motion to file the CLETS documents at-issue under seal, which means that the documents may be filed publicly.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the Ninth Circuit's strong presumption in favor of public access to court documents. The court found that the plaintiff waived privacy interests and that the specific information (VIN and PII) was already public, satisfying the 'compelling reasons' test for sealing. The decision follows from the cited authorities and the facts recited in the order. |
Order to file lodged documents nunc pro tunc“To conserve resources, especially considering Plaintiff's status as a pro se litigant, the Court will issue separate discrepancy orders to file the lodged documents nunc pro tunc.” | agree with court The court exercised its administrative discretion to correct a filing discrepancy (sealed vs. public) without requiring the pro se plaintiff to re-file, which is a reasonable procedural accommodation. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the legal standard for sealing documents in the Ninth Circuit (strong presumption of access, compelling reasons required). It applies this standard to the specific facts (waiver of privacy, information already public) and reaches a defensible result. The citation to Rule 5.2(h) is appropriate for the waiver argument. The reasoning is concise but sufficient for this procedural motion.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 AARON RAISER, Case No.: 19-cv-0751-GPC-KSC 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S EX 13 v. PARTE APPLICATION TO SEAL CLETS DOCUMENTS AND FILING 14 SAN DIEGO COUNTY, et al., THE DOCUMENTS UNSEALED 15 Defendants. [ECF No. 163] 16 17 On April 14, 2021, Plaintiff filed an Ex Parte Application for an Order to (Not) 18 Seal CLETS [California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System] Documents. 19 ECF No. 163. Plaintiff moves to file the CLETS documents sealed solely to comply with 20 the Magistrate Judge’s Protective Order, see ECF Nos. 138, 159, 162, and wishes to file 21 the underlying documents as a publicly available record instead. 22 Upon review of the underlying documents, the Court agrees with Plaintiff that the 23 matter does not need to be sealed. Courts apply a “strong presumption in favor of 24 access” to documents filed in litigation. Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 25 1122, 1137 (9th Cir. 2003). To overcome that presumption, there must be “compelling 26 reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the general history of access 27 1 the public policies favoring disclosure, such as the public interest in understanding 2 || the judicial process.” Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178-79 3 || (9th Cir. 2006) (quotation marks, citations, and brackets omitted) (discussing the 4 ||requirements even in the face of a protective order). 5 No compelling reason exists to seal the CLETS documents that Plaintiff intends to 6 || file. The underlying information concerns the vehicle identification number (“VIN”) of 7 || Plaintiff's vehicle, and certain personally identifying information of Plaintiff. To the 8 || extent that Plaintiff has waived all privacy issues and that similar details are already 9 || available to the public in other court documents, it is appropriate to file the documents 10 under seal. See United States v. Seugasala, 670 F. App’x 641, 642 (9th Cir. 2016); cf. 11 || Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2(h) (discussing how a person may waive the privacy protections by 12 || filing a document without redaction and not under seal). 13 Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs motion to file the CLETS documents 14 || at-issue under seal, which means that the documents may be filed publicly. The Court is 15 receipt of the lodged sealed documents, albeit filed in discrepancy. To conserve 16 resources, especially considering Plaintiff's status as a pro se litigant, the Court will issue 17 separate discrepancy orders to file the lodged documents nunc pro tunc. This way 18 || Plaintiff will not need to undergo the extra burden of having to re-file the documents he 19 || already submitted to the Court. 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 22 ||Dated: May 18, 2021 23 Hon. athe Cee 4 United States District Judge 25 26 27 28 19-cv-0751-GPC-KSC