Bernard Hayes v. Deputy Blunt #2530

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 BERNARD HAYES, Case No. 24-cv-08905-RMI

8 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 9 Re: Dkt. Nos. 23, 27 10 DEPUTY BLUNT #2530, Defendant. 11

12 13 Plaintiff, a detainee proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. 14 § 1983. Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, but Plaintiff has not filed an opposition. 15 He will be given an extension to file an opposition. Defendants also filed a motion to strike non- 16 party notices regarding a deposition and a motion to seal. 17 Defendants took Plaintiff’s deposition on January 7, 2026. Plaintiff objected because there 18 was no court authorization. No court authorization is required for a deposition; therefore, any 19 objections are denied. Plaintiff’s objections were not signed by him and filed by a different 20 individual who is not an attorney. Defendants seek to strike these objections. The request is 21 granted. Plaintiff must submit his own filings signed by him, or filings must be prepared by an 22 attorney who represents him. The Court cannot consider pro se filings, not signed by Plaintiff. All 23 future filings, including the opposition to the motion for summary judgment, must be signed by 24 Plaintiff. 25 Defendants also seek to file video surveillance taken at the jail and Plaintiff’s medical 26 records under seal. The videos took place inside the jail and may reveal sensitive information 27 about the floor plan, access points, and the general layout of the secure facility. Revealing this 1 Plaintiff’s medical records contain sensitive and private health information that is protected by the 2 Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA), 42 U.S.C. § 1320d, et seq., 3 and the California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act (CMIA), Cal. Civ. Code § 56, et 4 seq. 5 “The proponent of sealing bears the burden with respect to sealing. A failure to meet that 6 burden means that the default posture of public access prevails.” Kamakana v. City & County of 7 Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1182 (9th Cir. 2006). In this district, requests to file documents under 8 seal in civil cases are governed by Civil Local Rule 79-5. The motion to file under seal must 9 include the following: 10 (1) a specific statement of the applicable legal standard and the reasons for keeping a 11 document under seal, including an explanation of: 12 (i)the legitimate private or public interests that warrant sealing; 13 (ii)the injury that will result if sealing is denied; and (iii)why a less restrictive alternative to sealing is not sufficient; 14 (2)evidentiary support from declarations where necessary; and 15 (3)a proposed order that is narrowly tailored to seal only the sealable material, and which 16 lists in table format each document or portion thereof that is sought to be sealed. 17 Civ. L.R. 79-5(c). 18 Defendants have met their burden and shown that the video and medical evidence are 19 entitled to protection under the law. The motion to file under seal is granted. However, Plaintiff 20 must be provided an opportunity to view the video footage to prepare his opposition. 21 For the foregoing reasons: 22 1. The motion to strike improper non-party filings (dkt. 23) is GRANTED. All 23 submissions must be signed by Plaintiff for the Court to consider the filings. 24 2. The motion to seal (dkt. 27) is GRANTED. The Clerk shall file the videos, medical 25 records, and the unredacted version of the motion for summary judgment with Plaintiff’s medical 26 information UNDER SEAL. 27 3. Plaintiff must file an opposition to the motion for summary judgment within ] of this action or the court may consider the motion unopposed. 2 IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 Dated: March 25, 2026 M(-— 5 RS&BERT M. ILLMAN 6 United States Magistrate Judge 7 8 9 10 1] a 12

13 14

15 16

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28