Charles Houff, et al. v. City of Sacramento, et al.

E.D. California

Charles Houff, et al. v. City of Sacramento, et al.

DecidedOctober 30, 2025

Docket2:22-cv-01150

StatusUnknown

This text of Charles Houff, et al. v. City of Sacramento, et al. (Charles Houff, et al. v. City of Sacramento, et al.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Charles Houff, et al. v. City of Sacramento, et al., (E.D. Cal. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CHARLES HOUFF, et al., No. 2:22-cv-01150-DC-JDP 12 Plaintiffs, 13 v. ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PLAINTIFFS’ REQUESTS TO SEAL 14 CITY OF SACRAMENTO, et al., DOCUMENTS FILED IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY 15 Defendants. JUDGMENT AND IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITIONS TO 16 DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 17 (Doc. Nos. 67, 72, 79, 86) 18

19 20 On December 16, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a notice of their request to file under seal 21 documents relating to their motion for summary judgment. (Doc. No. 67.) Specifically, Plaintiffs 22 seek to file unredacted versions of the following documents under seal: 23 1. Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment (Doc No. 68); 24 2. Plaintiffs’ statement of undisputed facts in support of Plaintiffs’ motion for 25 summary judgment (Doc. No. 68-1); 26 3. Exhibit A to the declaration of Ben Nisenbaum in support of Plaintiffs’ motion for 27 summary judgment (Doc. No. 69-1); and 28 4. Exhibit W to the declaration of Ben Nisenbaum in support of Plaintiffs’ motion for 1 summary judgment (Doc. No. 69-23). 2 On December 20, 2024, Defendant Brian Ellis filed a joinder to Plaintiffs’ request to file 3 those documents under seal. (Doc. No. 72.) 4 On January 29, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a request to file under seal documents relating to 5 their opposition to Defendants’ separate motions for summary judgment. (Doc. No. 79.) 6 Specifically, Plaintiffs seek to file unredacted versions1 of the following documents under seal: 7 1. Plaintiffs’ opposition to Defendants City of Sacramento, Mitchell Barrett, and 8 Michael Frazer’s motion for summary judgment, and Plaintiffs’ reply brief in 9 support of Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 82); 10 2. Plaintiffs’ opposition to Defendant Brian Ellis’ motion for summary judgment and 11 reply brief in support of Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 80); 12 3. Plaintiffs’ opposition to Defendants County of Sacramento, Jim Spurgeon, and 13 Michael Dennis’ motion for summary judgment and reply brief in support of 14 Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 81); 15 4. Plaintiffs’ response to Defendants City of Sacramento, Mitchell Barrett, and 16 Michael Frazer’s separate statement of undisputed facts in support of motion for 17 summary judgment (Doc. No. 82-1); 18 5. Plaintiffs’ response to Defendants County of Sacramento, James Spurgeon, and 19 Michael Daniels’ separate statement of undisputed facts in support of motion for 20 summary judgment (Doc. No. 81-1); 21 6. Plaintiffs’ response to Defendant Brian Ellis’ separate statement of undisputed 22 facts in support of motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 80-1); 23 7. Exhibit A to the declaration of Ian Kelley filed in support of Plaintiffs’ oppositions 24 to Defendants’ motions for summary judgment (Doc. No. 83-1); and 25 8. Exhibit C to the declaration of Ian Kelley filed in support of Plaintiffs’ oppositions 26 to Defendants’ motions for summary judgment (Doc. No. 83-3). 27 1 Plaintiffs have already filed redacted versions of all documents on the public docket contrary to 28 Local Rule 140(b). 1 On January 30, 2025, Defendant Brian Ellis filed a joinder to Plaintiffs’ second request to 2 file those documents under seal. (Doc. No. 86.) 3 None of the Defendants has submitted an opposition to either of Plaintiffs’ requests to 4 seal. For the reasons explained below, the court will deny Plaintiffs’ requests to file under seal 5 without prejudice. 6 The court recognizes that all documents filed with the court are presumptively public. San 7 Jose Mercury News, Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Court, 187 F.3d 1096, 1103 (9th Cir. 1999) (“It is well- 8 established that the fruits of pretrial discovery are, in the absence of a court order to the contrary, 9 presumptively public.”). However, courts may permit a party to file under seal documents, such 10 as briefing in support of (or in opposition to) motions for summary judgment and exhibits thereto, 11 where that party shows “compelling reasons” to support maintaining secrecy of those documents. 12 Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006); Ctr. for Auto Safety 13 v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1101 (9th Cir. 2016) (applying “compelling reasons” 14 standard to motions that are “more than tangentially related to the merits”). “In general, 15 ‘compelling reasons’ sufficient to . . . justify sealing court records exist when such ‘court files 16 might . . . become a vehicle for improper purposes,’ such as the use of records to gratify private 17 spite, promote public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets.” Kamakana, 18 447 F.3d at 1179 (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). 19 “The mere fact that the production of records may lead to a litigant’s embarrassment, 20 incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will not, without more, compel the court to seal its 21 records.” Id. 22 Here, Plaintiffs request that the subject documents be filed under seal because they have 23 been deemed confidential pursuant to a stipulated protective order agreed to by the parties and 24 signed by the assigned magistrate judge. (Doc. No. 73.) But a party seeking to file under seal 25 documents relating to a motion for summary judgment must show compelling reasons for the 26 documents to be sealed, regardless of whether they are the subject of a stipulated protective order. 27 Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (“The ‘compelling reasons’ standard is invoked even if the 28 dispositive motion, or its attachments, were previously filed under seal or protective order.”). 1 Additionally, both the Eastern District Local Rules and this court’s Standing Order in Civil 2 Actions make clear that a stipulated protective order does not govern the filing of sealed or 3 redacted documents on the public docket. E.D. Cal. R. 141(a) (“To ensure that documents are 4 properly sealed, specific requests to seal must be made even if an existing protective order, 5 statute, or rule requires or permits the sealing of the document.”); (Doc. No. 63-1 at 4) 6 (“Protective orders covering the discovery phase shall not govern the filing of sealed or redacted 7 documents on the public docket.”)). Plaintiffs’ argument that the unredacted documents should be 8 sealed merely because they are the subject of a stipulated protective order is contrary to law, the 9 Eastern District Local Rules, and this court’s Civil Standing Order. Thus, the court finds that 10 Plaintiffs have failed to provide a compelling reason why the unredacted documents should be 11 filed under seal.2 12 Accordingly, 13 1. Plaintiffs’ requests to seal (Doc. Nos. 67, 79), as joined by Defendant Ellis (Doc. 14 Nos. 72, 86), are DENIED without prejudice; 15 2. If any party, wishes to have any of the documents referenced in Plaintiffs’ requests 16 (Doc. No. 67, 79) filed under seal or redacted, that party shall file a request to seal 17 or redact pursuant to Local Rules 140 and 141, within fourteen (14) days of the 18 date of entry of this order; and 19 ///// 20 ///// 21 ///// 22

23 2 The court notes that in his joinders, Defendant Ellis argues that the subject documents relate to “an internal affairs report subject to Ellis’ privacy rights” and therefore should be sealed. (Doc. 24 Nos. 72, 86.) However, Defendant Ellis does not cite any authority in support of this argument. Notably, courts do not typically permit filing of internal affairs investigations documents under 25 seal. Macias v. Cleaver, No. 1:13-cv-01819-BAM, 2016 WL 3549257, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Jun. 30, 2016) (citing Welsh v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, 887 F. Supp. 1293, 1302 (N.D. Cal.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CHARLES HOUFF, et al., No. 2:22-cv-01150-DC-JDP 12 Plaintiffs, 13 v. ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PLAINTIFFS’ REQUESTS TO SEAL 14 CITY OF SACRAMENTO, et al., DOCUMENTS FILED IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY 15 Defendants. JUDGMENT AND IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITIONS TO 16 DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 17 (Doc. Nos. 67, 72, 79, 86) 18

19 20 On December 16, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a notice of their request to file under seal 21 documents relating to their motion for summary judgment. (Doc. No. 67.) Specifically, Plaintiffs 22 seek to file unredacted versions of the following documents under seal: 23 1. Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment (Doc No. 68); 24 2. Plaintiffs’ statement of undisputed facts in support of Plaintiffs’ motion for 25 summary judgment (Doc. No. 68-1); 26 3. Exhibit A to the declaration of Ben Nisenbaum in support of Plaintiffs’ motion for 27 summary judgment (Doc. No. 69-1); and 28 4. Exhibit W to the declaration of Ben Nisenbaum in support of Plaintiffs’ motion for 1 summary judgment (Doc. No. 69-23). 2 On December 20, 2024, Defendant Brian Ellis filed a joinder to Plaintiffs’ request to file 3 those documents under seal. (Doc. No. 72.) 4 On January 29, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a request to file under seal documents relating to 5 their opposition to Defendants’ separate motions for summary judgment. (Doc. No. 79.) 6 Specifically, Plaintiffs seek to file unredacted versions1 of the following documents under seal: 7 1. Plaintiffs’ opposition to Defendants City of Sacramento, Mitchell Barrett, and 8 Michael Frazer’s motion for summary judgment, and Plaintiffs’ reply brief in 9 support of Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 82); 10 2. Plaintiffs’ opposition to Defendant Brian Ellis’ motion for summary judgment and 11 reply brief in support of Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 80); 12 3. Plaintiffs’ opposition to Defendants County of Sacramento, Jim Spurgeon, and 13 Michael Dennis’ motion for summary judgment and reply brief in support of 14 Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 81); 15 4. Plaintiffs’ response to Defendants City of Sacramento, Mitchell Barrett, and 16 Michael Frazer’s separate statement of undisputed facts in support of motion for 17 summary judgment (Doc. No. 82-1); 18 5. Plaintiffs’ response to Defendants County of Sacramento, James Spurgeon, and 19 Michael Daniels’ separate statement of undisputed facts in support of motion for 20 summary judgment (Doc. No. 81-1); 21 6. Plaintiffs’ response to Defendant Brian Ellis’ separate statement of undisputed 22 facts in support of motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 80-1); 23 7. Exhibit A to the declaration of Ian Kelley filed in support of Plaintiffs’ oppositions 24 to Defendants’ motions for summary judgment (Doc. No. 83-1); and 25 8. Exhibit C to the declaration of Ian Kelley filed in support of Plaintiffs’ oppositions 26 to Defendants’ motions for summary judgment (Doc. No. 83-3). 27 1 Plaintiffs have already filed redacted versions of all documents on the public docket contrary to 28 Local Rule 140(b). 1 On January 30, 2025, Defendant Brian Ellis filed a joinder to Plaintiffs’ second request to 2 file those documents under seal. (Doc. No. 86.) 3 None of the Defendants has submitted an opposition to either of Plaintiffs’ requests to 4 seal. For the reasons explained below, the court will deny Plaintiffs’ requests to file under seal 5 without prejudice. 6 The court recognizes that all documents filed with the court are presumptively public. San 7 Jose Mercury News, Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Court, 187 F.3d 1096, 1103 (9th Cir. 1999) (“It is well- 8 established that the fruits of pretrial discovery are, in the absence of a court order to the contrary, 9 presumptively public.”). However, courts may permit a party to file under seal documents, such 10 as briefing in support of (or in opposition to) motions for summary judgment and exhibits thereto, 11 where that party shows “compelling reasons” to support maintaining secrecy of those documents. 12 Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006); Ctr. for Auto Safety 13 v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1101 (9th Cir. 2016) (applying “compelling reasons” 14 standard to motions that are “more than tangentially related to the merits”). “In general, 15 ‘compelling reasons’ sufficient to . . . justify sealing court records exist when such ‘court files 16 might . . . become a vehicle for improper purposes,’ such as the use of records to gratify private 17 spite, promote public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets.” Kamakana, 18 447 F.3d at 1179 (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). 19 “The mere fact that the production of records may lead to a litigant’s embarrassment, 20 incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will not, without more, compel the court to seal its 21 records.” Id. 22 Here, Plaintiffs request that the subject documents be filed under seal because they have 23 been deemed confidential pursuant to a stipulated protective order agreed to by the parties and 24 signed by the assigned magistrate judge. (Doc. No. 73.) But a party seeking to file under seal 25 documents relating to a motion for summary judgment must show compelling reasons for the 26 documents to be sealed, regardless of whether they are the subject of a stipulated protective order. 27 Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (“The ‘compelling reasons’ standard is invoked even if the 28 dispositive motion, or its attachments, were previously filed under seal or protective order.”). 1 Additionally, both the Eastern District Local Rules and this court’s Standing Order in Civil 2 Actions make clear that a stipulated protective order does not govern the filing of sealed or 3 redacted documents on the public docket. E.D. Cal. R. 141(a) (“To ensure that documents are 4 properly sealed, specific requests to seal must be made even if an existing protective order, 5 statute, or rule requires or permits the sealing of the document.”); (Doc. No. 63-1 at 4) 6 (“Protective orders covering the discovery phase shall not govern the filing of sealed or redacted 7 documents on the public docket.”)). Plaintiffs’ argument that the unredacted documents should be 8 sealed merely because they are the subject of a stipulated protective order is contrary to law, the 9 Eastern District Local Rules, and this court’s Civil Standing Order. Thus, the court finds that 10 Plaintiffs have failed to provide a compelling reason why the unredacted documents should be 11 filed under seal.2 12 Accordingly, 13 1. Plaintiffs’ requests to seal (Doc. Nos. 67, 79), as joined by Defendant Ellis (Doc. 14 Nos. 72, 86), are DENIED without prejudice; 15 2. If any party, wishes to have any of the documents referenced in Plaintiffs’ requests 16 (Doc. No. 67, 79) filed under seal or redacted, that party shall file a request to seal 17 or redact pursuant to Local Rules 140 and 141, within fourteen (14) days of the 18 date of entry of this order; and 19 ///// 20 ///// 21 ///// 22

23 2 The court notes that in his joinders, Defendant Ellis argues that the subject documents relate to “an internal affairs report subject to Ellis’ privacy rights” and therefore should be sealed. (Doc. 24 Nos. 72, 86.) However, Defendant Ellis does not cite any authority in support of this argument. Notably, courts do not typically permit filing of internal affairs investigations documents under 25 seal. Macias v. Cleaver, No. 1:13-cv-01819-BAM, 2016 WL 3549257, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Jun. 30, 2016) (citing Welsh v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, 887 F. Supp. 1293, 1302 (N.D. Cal. 1995) 26 (denying request to seal internal affairs report and explaining that “where the case involves 27 allegations of police misconduct, the public has a vested interest ‘in assessing the truthfulness of the allegations of official misconduct, and whether agencies that are responsible for investigating 28 and adjudicating complaints of misconduct have acted properly and wisely.’”) (citation omitted)). 1 3. If no request to seal is filed within fourteen (14) days of this order, the court will 2 require Plaintiffs to file unredacted versions of the referenced documents on the 3 public docket. 4 5 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. □ 7 | Dated: _ October 30, 2025 LY Dena Coggins 8 United States District Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Charles Houff, et al. v. City of Sacramento, et al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/charles-houff-et-al-v-city-of-sacramento-et-al-caed-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack