Ashker v. Newsom

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 EUREKA DIVISION 11 TODD ASHKER, et al., Case No.: 4:09-cv-05796-CW (RMI) 12 Plaintiffs, CLASS ACTION 13 v. [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ ADMINISTRATIVE 14 GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL CALIFORNIA, et al., 15 Judge: Honorable Robert M. Illman Defendants. 16

17 The Court has received Plaintiffs’ Administrative Motion to File Under Seal, and the 18 Declaration of Rachel Meeropol in support of the same. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5(a), 19 Plaintiffs have shown that the portions of the documents to be sealed are entitled to protection 20 under the law because they contain confidential information that Defendants claim could harm 21 CDCR institutional safety and security if disclosed. See Dugan v. Lloyds TSB Bank, PLC, No. 12- 22 cv-02549-WHA (NJV), 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51162, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 9, 2013) (finding that 23 good cause may exist to seal records “if disclosure of the information might harm a litigant’s 24 competitive standing”). Plaintiffs have met the “good cause” standard for sealing portions of the 25 Reply Brief in Support of Motion to Lift Redactions, because Plaintiffs have shown that they 26 contain confidential information that Defendants claim would harm institutional safety and 27 security, and would further compromise ongoing investigations of alleged prison gang activity if 28 disclosed. See Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006). 1 Having considered Plaintiffs’ Administrative Motion to File Under Seal and the Declaration 2 of Rachel Meeropol in support of same, and good cause appearing therefor, Plaintiffs’ Motion is 3 hereby GRANTED. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 6 Dated: May 5, 2020 Honorable Robert M. Illman 7 United States Magistrate Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28