Cross v. Central Contra Costa Transit Authority

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 SHANNON CROSS, Case No. 21-cv-01312-JST

8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 9 v. DENYING IN PART ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO 10 CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA TRANSIT CONSIDER WHETHER ANOTHER AUTHORITY, PARTY’S MATERIAL SHOULD BE 11 SEALED Defendant. 12 Re: ECF No. 80 13 Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to consider whether another party’s material should 14 be sealed. ECF No. 80. Defendant filed a response pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5(f). ECF 15 No. 84. Plaintiff has agreed to withdraw Exhibit B109 as not relevant to the summary judgment 16 motion. ECF No. 91. Defendant argues that the Court should exclude Exhibit Nos. B22–33, 43, 17 and 48–120, because they were not properly referenced in Plaintiff’s opposition. ECF No. 90 at 18 3–4. Upon review, the Court finds that Plaintiff sufficiently identified this evidence and denies 19 Defendant’s request to exclude it from this order. 20 With respect to Plaintiff’s sealing motion, Defendant argues the disciplinary records of 21 non-party employees should be filed under seal and that personal identifying information, 22 specifically names, addresses, telephone numbers, email addresses, dates of birth, social security 23 numbers, and driver’s license numbers in the remaining documents should be redacted. ECF No. 24 90 at 5–6. 25 A party seeking to seal a document filed with the court must (1) comply with Civil Local 26 Rule 79-5 and (2) rebut the “strong presumption in favor of access” that applies to all documents 27 other than grand jury transcripts or pre-indictment warrant materials. Kamakana v. City and 1 request be “narrowly tailored to seal only the sealable material.” Civil L.R. 79-5(c). 2 Because the documents relate to a motion for summary judgment, the party seeking to seal 3 must meet the “compelling reasons” standard. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179–81. That is, they 4 must “articulate compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the 5 general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure.” Id. at 1178–79 (quotation 6 marks, alteration, and citation omitted). Examples of compelling reasons include preventing “the 7 use of records to gratify private spite, promote public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or 8 release trade secrets.” Id. at 1179. 9 The parties do not dispute, and the Court agrees, that personal identifying information, 10 specifically social security numbers, dates of birth, home addresses, and phone numbers should be 11 sealed. ECF No. 90 at 5–6; ECF 91 at 4. The Court agrees with Defendant that in addition, email 12 addresses and driver’s license numbers should also be redacted. Defendant has not demonstrated, 13 however, that compelling reasons warrant sealing all names and nonresidential addresses in the 14 exhibits, such as where an incident occurred. See, e.g., Ex. B22. 15 Defendant also requests that the disciplinary records of non-party employees be sealed in 16 their entirety. ECF No. 90 at 5. Defendant contends that compelling reasons warrant sealing these 17 records because they “are not publicly available and constitute personnel records which must be 18 kept confidential.” Id. However, Defendant has failed to make a particularized showing that these 19 entire exhibits should be under seal. Rather, it appears that “redacting the identifying information 20 of third parties (e.g., their names, addresses, telephone numbers, and social security numbers) 21 from these records and disclosing the remaining information would not injure the third 22 parties . . . .” Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1137 (9th Cir. 2003). The 23 video exhibits, Exhibit C1, C2, C3, and C4, shall remain sealed in their entirety because they 24 cannot be easily redacted. See Doyle v. Galderma, Inc., No. 19-cv-05678, 2021 WL 4926999, at 25 *1 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 27, 2021) (finding sealing of entire exhibit was warranted when it contained 26 information which, if known about the employee, could harm him and could not be easily 27 redacted). 1 designated at ECF No. 80 (except exhibits C1-C4) on the public record, redacting social security 2 numbers, dates of birth, home addresses, phone numbers, email addresses and driver’s license 3 |} numbers. In addition, Plaintiff shall redact the names of non-party CCCTA employees from their 4 || disciplinary and personnel records. The Court has already directed the Clerk to restrict access to 5 Plaintiff's opposition brief. ECF No. 75. Plaintiff shall refile her opposition brief, redacting the 6 || names of non-party CCCTA employees subject to disciplinary actions. The Clerk shall maintain 7 || the flash drive containing Exhibits C1-C4 under seal. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED.

9 || Dated: July 22, 2024 10 JON S. TIGAR 11 nited States District Judge 12

© 15 16

= 17

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