Cheatum v. City of San Diego

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: August 14, 2019
• Docket: 3:18-cv-01703
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 Case No.: 18-cv-1703-BTM-AGS KAROND CHEATUM, an 12 individual, ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 13 DENYING IN PART Plaintiff, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO SEAL 14 v. 15 [ECF No. 11] CITY OF SAN DIEGO, a 16 municipality, SAN DIEGO POLICE DEPARTMENT, and OFFICER 17 ESTRADA (#6871), an individual; 18 and DOES 1-25, inclusive, 19 Defendants. 20 21 Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Seal documents contained in its 22 Motion to Dismiss the Complaint. (See ECF No. 10-5). The Complaint alleges 23 that Defendant officers deployed excessive force, ordering a K-9 to attack 24 Plaintiff after he had already surrendered to arrest. (See ECF No. 1). 25 Defendants request leave to file the following documents under seal: 26 • Exhibit 1: Body worn camera footage of Officer Carlos Estrada; 27 • Exhibit 2: Transcript of Officer Estrada’s body worn camera footage; 28 • Exhibit 3: Recording of Sgt. Scott Holslag’s interview of Mr. 1 Cheatum; and 2 • Exhibit 4: Transcript of Sgt. Holslag’s interview. 3 Defendants state that the above exhibits will likely be subject to a protective 4 order as the litigation progresses because they contain confidential information, 5 including, “Defendants’ tactics and the police service dog’s bite command, 6 information regarding the plaintiff’s mental status on the date of the incident, the 7 officers’ identities and their badge numbers.” (ECF No. 11-1 at 3). Defendants 8 add that the exhibits contain private and personal information regarding Plaintiff, 9 as well as privileged official information that was not open or officially disclosed 10 to the public prior to the assertion of privilege. (Id.) 11 “Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy 12 public records and documents, including judicial records and documents.’ ” 13 Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) 14 (quoting Nixon v. Warner Communs., Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 n.7 (1978)). The 15 party moving to seal “bears the burden of overcoming this strong presumption [of 16 access] by meeting the compelling reasons standard.” Id. at 1178 (citing Foltz v. 17 State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). The 18 standard requires the moving party to “articulate compelling reasons supported 19 by specific factual findings . . . that outweigh the general history of access and 20 the public policies favoring disclosure . . . .” Id. at 1179 (internal citations and 21 quotation marks omitted). The district court must then “weigh relevant factors, 22 base its decision on a compelling reason, and articulate the factual basis for its 23 ruling, without relying on hypothesis or conjecture.” Pintos v. Pacific Creditors 24 Ass'n, 605 F.3d 665, 679 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Hagestad v. Tragesser, 49 F.3d 25 1430, 1434 (9th Cir. 1995)). “In general, ‘compelling reasons’ sufficient to 26 outweigh the public’s interest in disclosure and justify sealing court records exist 27 when such ‘court files might have become a vehicle for improper purposes,’ such 28 1 |/libelous statements, or release trade secrets.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179. If 2 || public access to the documents to be sealed would “promot[e] the public’s 3 || understanding ... of [a] significant public event[ ],” that fact weighs against sealing 4 || the judicial record. Valley Broad. Co. v. U.S. Dist. Court for Dist. of Nevada, 798 5 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1986). 6 The Court grants Defendants leave to seal information concerning the dog 7 || bite command, because public knowledge of such a command could jeopardize 8 ||security. The Court DENIES the rest of the Motion. Although Plaintiff does not 9 || object to sealing the above exhibits, Plaintiff does not affirmatively request their 10 ||sealing to preserve his privacy. Moreover, the Court is concerned that such 11 |/records are of significance to the public, who has an interest in the activity of law 12 ||enforcement and its use of force. The Motion does not address the public 13 |/interest, nor does it articulate a compelling reason that would outweigh the 14 || public’s interest in disclosure of the body cameras, videos, or transcripts 15 ||described. Accordingly, the Motion to Seal is denied as to all but the dog bite 16 ||command itself. (ECF No. 11). Defendants shall publically file redacted exhibits 17 ||in accordance with this order. The unredacted exhibits shall be filed under seal. 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 ||Dated: July 26, 2019 20 Ls Fil Hono ble Barry Ted Moskgwitz United States District Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28