Brar v. State of California

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TANBEER SINGH BRAR, Case No. 1:25-cv-00136-JLT-CDB

12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL 13 v. OBJECTIONS TO FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, (Doc. 24) 15 Defendant. ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF THE 16 COURT TO DOCKET OBJECTIONS TO FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 17 18 Plaintiff Tanbeer Singh Brar seeks to hold the State of California liable for violating his 19 right to privacy under the Fourth Amendment pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He contends that 20 since July 2021, the County of Kern and State of California “law enforcement agencies and 21 officials are violating [his] online privacy and policy of [his] phones and computers.” (Doc. 1 at 22 5). 23 After considering Plaintiff’s application for emergency relief and having conducted a 24 preliminary review of Plaintiff’s complaint, on March 10, 2025, the undersigned issued findings 25 and recommendations to deny Plaintiff’s motion for emergency temporary protective order1 and 26 ordered Plaintiff to show cause in writing why the action should not be dismissed as time-barred. 27

28 1 The assigned district judge adopted the findings and recommendations and denied 1 (Doc. 9). 2 Following Plaintiff’s timely response to the show cause order and objections to findings 3 and recommendations, on March 31, 2025, the undersigned discharged the show cause order and 4 issued Findings and Recommendations that this action be dismissed with prejudice because 5 Plaintiff’s claims are time-barred under the applicable statute of limitations. (Doc. 19 at 2-3). 6 Plaintiff was provided 14 days, i.e., to April 14, 2025, to file written objections with the Court 7 following service of the findings and recommendations. (Id. at 6). On April 7, 2025, Plaintiff 8 timely filed objections to the Findings and Recommendations. (Doc. 21). 9 On April 14, 2025, Plaintiff hand-delivered to the Clerk of the Court’s office (1) a motion 10 to file under seal objections to the undersigned’s Findings and Recommendations (Doc. 24), and 11 (2) a 35-page document consisting of Plaintiff’s objections. 12 Discussion 13 The sealing of documents in this Court is governed by federal law and Local Rule 141. 14 Relevant here, documents may be sealed “only by written order of the Court, upon the showing 15 required by applicable law.” Local Rule 141(a). In support of a motion to seal, the filing party 16 must submit a “Notice” and a separate “Request to Seal” that sets forth the statutory or other 17 authority for sealing, the requested duration of the sealing, the identity, by name or category, of 18 persons to be permitted access to the documents, and all other relevant information. Local Rule 19 141(b). 20 Here, the Court construes Plaintiff’s filing titled “Motion” (Doc. 24) to be the “Notice” to 21 seal required under Local Rule 141. However, Plaintiff has not submitted a separate “Request to 22 Seal” that identifies the statutory or other basis for the requested sealing of Plaintiff’s objections. 23 The Court has reviewed the Notice (Doc. 24) and 35-page “Objections” that Plaintiff seeks to file 24 under seal and notes that neither document identifies the basis for the sealing. 25 On pages 14 and 15 of Plaintiff’s 35-page “Objections,” Plaintiff includes a handwritten 26 statement that he requests his objections be sealed because he advances therein allegations of 27 misconduct against identified County of Kern employees for whom he has made complaints with 28 1 made an agreement with unidentified parties to not pursue relief in court for these allegations of 2 misconduct. 3 Under the First Amendment, the press and the public have a presumed right of access to 4 court proceedings and documents. See generally Press-Enterprise Co. v. Super. Ct., 464 U.S. 501, 5 510 (1985); Center for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Group, LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2016); 6 cf. Olympic Ref. Co. v. Carter, 332 F.2d 260, 264 (9th Cir. 1964) (“In the federal judicial system 7 trial and pretrial proceedings are ordinarily to be conducted in public.”). As a general rule, the 8 public is permitted ‘access to litigation documents and information produced during discovery.’” 9 In re Roman Catholic Archbishop of Portland in Oregon, 661 F.3d 417, 424 (9th Cir. 2011) 10 (quoting Phillips v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F. 3d 1206, 1210 (9th Cir. 2002) and citing San Jose 11 Mercury News, Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 187 F.3d 1096, 1103 (9th Cir. 1999)). This presumed right 12 can be overcome if (1) closure serves a compelling interest; (2) there is a substantial probability 13 that, in the absence of closure, this compelling interest would be harmed; and (3) there are no 14 alternatives to closure that would adequately protect the compelling interest. Oregonian 15 Publishing Co., 920 F.2d at 1466 (citing Press Enterprise, 464 U.S. at 510). 16 Here, Plaintiff has not identified a compelling interest warranting the sealing of his 17 objections. The mere reference to allegations of misconduct against public employees and the fact 18 of Plaintiff’s reporting of such misconduct to law enforcement does not implicate a compelling 19 interest. Although Plaintiff vaguely refers to his fear that disclosure of his objections may cause a 20 “circumstance deprive to [his] life or [illegible] withholding [his] child for that” (“Objections” at 21 p. 15), it is entirely unclear to the undersigned how any such fear is reasonable. In short, Plaintiff 22 fails to carry his burden of rebutting the presumed right of access to his objections to the Findings 23 and Recommendations to dismiss his case. See Press-Enterprise Co., 464 U.S. at 510 (1985); 24 Center for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1096. 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 1 Conclusion and Order 2 For the foregoing reasons, it is HEREBY ORDERED that: 3 1. Plaintiff's request to file under seal his further objections (Doc. 24) is DENIED; and 4 2. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to file on the public docket the 35-page document 5 hand-delivered by Plaintiff to the Clerk of the Court’s office on April 14, 2025, titled 6 “Objection Magistrate Judge’s Finding and Recommendations and Motion for Propose 7 Orders.” IS SO ORDERED. pated: _ April 17, 2025 | warn D Pr 10 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28