Estrada v. United States of America
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Bernard G. Skomal (author)
Analysis
The court considered a joint motion to seal Exhibits 1 and 2 to a discovery brief and a motion to allow the defendant to file Exhibit 3 ex parte and under seal. The court granted the motions, finding good cause to seal the exhibits based on an in camera review and the potential applicability of the deliberative process privilege.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Grant joint motion to file Exhibits 1 and 2 under seal and allow Defendant to file Exhibit 3 ex parte and under seal.“The Court, therefore, finds good cause to GRANT the joint motion to file Exhibits 1 and 2 under seal, and to allow Defendant to file Exhibit 3 ex parte and under seal, pending further order of this Court.” | agree with court The court applied the 'good cause' standard for sealing discovery materials, which is the correct standard under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) and Ninth Circuit precedent (Kamakana). The court performed an in camera review and cited the deliberative process privilege as a basis for confidentiality, which is a valid reason for sealing. The decision follows logically from the cited law and the court's review of the exhibits. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the 'good cause' standard for sealing discovery materials under Rule 26(c) and Ninth Circuit precedent. It cites the appropriate cases (Kamakana and Phillips) to support the standard. The court performed an in camera review, which is a proper procedural step, and identified a specific privilege (deliberative process) as the basis for the sealing. The reasoning is concise but sufficient for a sealing order.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
inconsistent with cited authorityOpinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 Silvestre ESTRADA, a minor, by and Case No.: 22-cv-00373-AJB-BGS through is proposed guardian ad litem 10 Emily Prieto, et al., SEALING ORDER 11 Plaintiffs, 12 [ECF No. 30] v. 13 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 14 Defendant. 15 16 The parties have filed a joint motion to file Exhibits 1 and 2 to their joint discovery 17 brief under seal, and to allow Defendant, the United States of America, to file Exhibit 3 18 to the parties’ joint discovery brief ex parte and under seal. (ECF Nos. 29 and 30.) 19 “A ‘good cause’ showing will suffice to seal documents produced in discovery.” 20 Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1180 (2006) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 21 26(c)). “[W]hen a district court grants a protective order to seal documents during 22 discovery, ‘it already has determined that good cause exists to protect this information 23 from being disclosed to the public by balancing the needs for discovery against the need 24 for confidentiality.’” Id. at 1179-80 (quoting Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. 25 Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1313 (2002)). 26 This Court previously granted the parties’ joint motion for a Protective Order. 27 28 1 | (ECF No. 22.) Furthermore, the Court concludes there is good cause to seal all three 2 exhibits after its in camera review of Exhibits 1, 2, and 3 because it finds that some of the 3 || information in all three exhibits may fall within the deliberative process privilege. See 4 Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1180. 5 The Court, therefore, finds good cause to GRANT the joint motion to file Exhibits 6 1 and 2 under seal, and to allow Defendant to file Exhibit 3 ex parte and under seal, 7 pending further order of this Court. 8 ? IT IS SO ORDERED. aphid 10 on. Bernard G. Skomal 11 United States Magistrate Judge D Dated: December 6, 2022 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 22-cv-00373-AJB-BGS