Ballester v. Boucek
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cynthia Ann Bashant (author)
Analysis
Defendant Leah Boucek moved to seal two previously filed documents (Plaintiff's ex parte application and proof of service) and to shorten the time to hear the motion. The Court granted the motion to seal based on good cause related to judicial security and denied the motion to shorten time as moot.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion to file documents under seal (ECF No. 15) granted“Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to seal.” | agree with court The court correctly identified that the documents were not more than tangentially related to the merits, triggering the 'good cause' standard. The court accepted the defendant's argument that security risks to judicial officers constitute good cause, which is a recognized justification in the Ninth Circuit for sealing records containing personal information of judges. |
Motion to shorten time (ECF No. 16) denied as moot“Defendant’s motion to shorten time is DENIED as moot. (ECF No. 16.)” | agree with court Since the underlying motion to seal was decided, the request to expedite the hearing on that motion became moot. This is a standard procedural disposition. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly applies the Ninth Circuit's two-tiered standard for sealing records. It accurately determines that the documents in question (an ex parte application to set aside a judgment and a proof of service) are not 'more than tangentially related to the merits' in the context of the current federal action, or at least that the court is applying the lower 'good cause' threshold. The court accepts the security-based justification for sealing, which is a valid 'good cause' argument under Ninth Circuit precedent. The reasoning is concise but legally sufficient for a procedural sealing order.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 ELEANOR BALLESTER, Case No. 23-cv-1839-BAS-KSC 11 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING EX PARTE 12 v. MOTION TO FILE DOCUMENTS 13 UNDER SEAL (ECF No. 15) AND DENYING MOTION TO SHORTEN 14 COMMISSIONER LEAH BOUCEK, TIME AS MOOT (ECF No. 16) JUDGE MICHAEL T. SMYTH, 15 BENJAMIN YIP, PUJA ARUN
16 SACHDEV, SAMUEL MARTINETTE,
MARK HEINRICH, and DOES 1-10 17 include, 18 Defendants. 19 20 Before the Court is Defendant Commissioner Leah Boucek’s ex parte motion to file 21 previously filed documents under seal (ECF No. 15) and application to shorten time to hear 22 this motion. (ECF No. 16.) Defendant seeks to file Plaintiff’s ex parte application to set 23 aside the prior judgment and Plaintiff’s proof of service of summons under seal. (ECF 24 Nos. 3-2, 6.) Plaintiff has not responded to Defendant’s motion to seal.1 25 “[T]he courts of this country recognize a general right to inspect and copy public 26 records and documents, including judicial records and documents.” Nixon v. Warner 27 1 The parties met and conferred on October 11, 2023, and Plaintiff was made aware the motion to 28 1 Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978). “Unless a particular court record is one 2 ‘traditionally kept secret,’ a ‘strong presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.” 3 Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing Foltz v. 4 State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). “The presumption 5 of access is ‘based on the need for federal courts, although independent—indeed, 6 particularly because they are independent—to have a measure of accountability and for the 7 public to have confidence in the administration of justice.” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler 8 Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 9 1044, 1048 (2d Cir. 1995)). 10 A party seeking to seal a judicial record bears the burden of overcoming the 11 presumption of access. Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1135. The showing required to meet this burden 12 depends upon whether the documents to be sealed relate to a motion that is “more than 13 tangentially related to the merits of the case.” Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1102. When 14 the underlying motion is more than tangentially related to the merits, the “compelling 15 reasons” standard applies. Id. at 1096–98. When the underlying motion does not surpass 16 the tangential relevance threshold, the “good cause” standard applies. Id. 17 Defendant Commissioner Boucek seeks to file under seal Plaintiff’s ex parte 18 application to set aside the state court judgment and Plaintiff’s proof of service of 19 summons. Neither motion is more than tangentially related to the merits of the dispute and 20 neither motion is dispositive. Therefore, the “good cause” standard applies. 21 Defendant Commissioner Boucek asserts there is good cause to file these motions 22 under seal because judicial officers are vulnerable to harassment and violence and inclusion 23 of a judicial officer’s address may increase the risk posed to judicial officers. (ECF No. 24 15.) Additionally, Defendant’s address is not central to the underlying merits of the action. 25 Finally, California Government Code § 7928.215 prohibits individuals from posting 26 judicial officers’ home addresses on the internet if that officer has requested that 27 information not be posted online. Defendant has so requested. (ECF No. 15.) The Court 28 1 agrees the need for security presents “good cause” to justify filing these documents under 2 ||seal. 3 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to seal. The Clerk of Court 4 directed to file the following documents under seal: Plaintiff's Memorandum of Points 5 |}and Authorities in Support of Ex Parte Application (ECF No. 3-2) and Plaintiff's Proof of 6 Service of Summons. (ECF No. 6.) Plaintiff is instructed not to include the home address 7 |}of Defendant or any other public officials in future motions given the security and 8 || harassment risks associated with doing so. Defendant’s motion to shorten time is DENIED 9 ||as moot. (ECF No. 16.) 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 /) 12 || DATED: October 19, 2023 Cypillng (Lyphan. SE ae 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4]