Bai v. Johnson

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 * * *

4 XIAO YE BAI, Case No. 2:20-cv-02192-GMN-EJY

5 Plaintiff, ORDER 6 v.

7 CALVIN JOHNSON, et al.,

8 Defendants.

9 10 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Notice of Under Seal Submission (ECF No. 84) to 11 which Plaintiff attaches numerous documents he wishes to file in support of his Objection to the 12 Court’s Report and Recommendation filed as ECF No. 82. Through the Notice, Plaintiff seeks to 13 file grievance documents and certain declarations under seal. 14 Years ago, the Ninth Circuit established a strong presumption of public access to judicial 15 records. Kamakana v. City of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006); Foltz v. State Farm 16 Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003). A party seeking to file documents under 17 seal bears the burden of overcoming that presumption. Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 18 678 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178). To overcome the presumption when a 19 dispositive motion is at issue, the moving party must demonstrate a compelling reason that supports 20 maintaining the secret nature of the documents. Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1180. The compelling 21 reasons must outweigh the public’s interest in having access to the judicial records and in 22 understanding the judicial process. Id. at 1178-79. However, where a party seeks to seal documents 23 attached to a non-dispositive motion, the “public policies that support the right of access to 24 dispositive motions … do not apply with equal force … .” Id. at 1179. The mere fact that the 25 production of records may lead to a party’s embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further 26 litigation will not alone compel the court to seal its records. Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1136. 27 Here, the grievance documents Plaintiff seeks to file under seal were discussed in great detail 1 || subject matter that is appropriately sealed. Plaintiff also attaches a “Declaration of the Class.” The 2 || 1s no class here and, of course, Plaintiff cannot assert claims on behalf of others. Simon v. Hartfo 3 || Life, Inc., 546 F.3d 661, 664 (9th Cir. 2008) (collecting cases and noting that courts routinely prohit 4 || pro se plaintiffs from representing others); Russell v. United States, 308 F.2d 78, 79 (9th Cir. 196 5 || (‘A litigant appearing [pro se] has no authority to represent anyone other than himself.”). To tl 6 || extent the individuals who purportedly signed this declaration wish to keep their identities secr 7 || from the public, while there is limited reason to believe could lead to harm, the Court will allow th 8 || declaration to be sealed to protect these individuals from retaliation. The Court will similarly allo 9 || the declaration of others incarcerated to be sealed to ensure, to the extent it is conceivably necessar 10 || their safety from retaliation or other harm. The remainder of the declarations will be unsealed 11 || there is no basis to find the sealing of these documents is warranted. 12 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Notice of Under Seal Submissi: 13 |} (ECF No. 84), which the Court construes as a Motion to Seal, is GRANTED in part and DENIE 14 || in part. 15 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the documents attached as ECF No. 84-1, at page numbe 16 |} 2-4, 8-9, shall be and will remain sealed. 17 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that documents attached as ECF No. 84-1, at pages 1, 5-7, a1 18 |} 10-22 shall be unsealed and filed on the public docket. 19 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that because Plaintiff is pro se and has limited ability to do s 20 || the Clerk of Court is ordered to separate pages 1, 5-7, and 10-22 from the remainder of ECF No. 8 21 || 1 and file these documents on the public record. 22 Dated this 11th day of July, 2022. 0 □ 0 24 |. Aric □□□ 25 UNITEL$ TATE AClsrh ATE JUDGE 26 27 28