Dominguez v. City Of San Jose

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: March 28, 2022
• Docket: 5:18-cv-04826
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 SAN JOSE DIVISION 6 7 JESSICA DOMINGUEZ, et al., Case No. 18-cv-04826-BLF

8 Plaintiffs, ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFFS’ 9 v. ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER ANOTHER 10 CITY OF SAN JOSE, et al., PARTY’S MATERIAL SHOULD BE SEALED 11 Defendants. [Re: ECF No. 54] 12

13 Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another Party’s 14 Material Should Be Sealed. See Motion, ECF No. 54. This is a civil rights action against Defendants 15 the City of San Jose, the San Jose Police Department, and Officer Michael Pina related to the alleged 16 shooting of Jacob Dominguez by Officer Pina on September 15, 2017, which resulted in Mr. 17 Dominguez’s death. See Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”), ECF No. 37 ¶¶ 12–14. Plaintiff 18 Jessica Dominguez, the wife of Mr. Dominguez, brings claims under (1) 42 U.S.C. § 1983; 19 (2) California Civil Code § 52.1; and (3) California Civil Code § 51.7, both individually and as 20 Guardian Ad Litem for her and Mr. Dominguez’s minor children. See SAC, ECF No. 37 ¶¶ 4, 6, 21 16–39. The parties filed cross motions for summary judgment on March 15 and 17, 2022, which 22 have yet to be fully briefed. See ECF Nos. 52, 55; see also ECF No. 56. 23 In support of their summary judgment motion, Plaintiffs submitted a City of San Jose Police 24 Department Internal Affairs video interview with Officer Pina on the night of the shooting produced 25 by Defendants in discovery (the “Video”). See Crowley Decl., ECF No. 53, Ex. 10. Defendants 26 designated the Video “Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only” under the Stipulated Protective Order. 27 See Defendants’ Statement, ECF No. 57 at 2; Stipulated Protective Order, ECF No. 41. In their 1 Administrative Motion, Plaintiffs seek permission to file the Video publicly, arguing that the public 2 interest in the Video outweighs any interest in sealing it. See Motion, ECF No. 54 at 3. In response, 3 Defendants provide exhibits to be filed publicly consisting of the two portions of the Video Plaintiffs 4 cite in their summary judgment motion with Officer Pina’s face blurred. See Clouse Decl., ECF 5 No. 57-2, Exs. E & F. Plaintiffs have filed a statement indicating that they agree to the public filing 6 of only the two portions of the Video with Officer Pina’s face blurred. See Plaintiffs’ Statement, 7 ECF No. 57 at 2. 8 Based on the below reasoning, the Court ORDERS that Exhibit 10 to Plaintiffs’ summary 9 judgment motion SHALL be kept under seal. The Court further ORDERS that the two portions of 10 the Video with Officer Pina’s face blurred filed as Exhibits E and F to the Declaration of Maren J. 11 Clouse at ECF No. 57-2 are the only portions of the Video that may be shown publicly. 12 I. LEGAL STANDARD 13 “Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records and 14 documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 15 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 16 & n. 7 (1978)). Accordingly, when considering a sealing request, “a ‘strong presumption in favor 17 of access’ is the starting point.” Id. (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 18 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). 19 Parties seeking to seal judicial records relating to dispositive motions bear the burden of 20 overcoming the presumption with “compelling reasons” that outweigh the general history of access 21 and the public policies favoring disclosure. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178–79. Compelling 22 reasons justifying the sealing of court records generally exist “when such ‘court files might … 23 become a vehicle for improper purposes,’” id. at 1179 (quoting Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598), such as: 24 “to gratify private spite, promote public scandal, circulate libelous statements,” id.; to “release trade 25 secrets,” id.; or “as sources of business information that might harm a litigant’s competitive 26 standing,” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1097 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting 27 Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598–99). On the other hand, “[t]he mere fact that the production of records may 1 more, compel the court to seal its records.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179. Further, “[b]road 2 allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples or articulated reasoning” will not suffice. 3 Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992). 4 In addition, in this district, all parties requesting sealing must comply with Civil Local 5 Rule 79-5. That rule requires, inter alia, the sealing motion to include “a specific statement of the 6 applicable legal standard and the reasons for keeping a document under seal, including an 7 explanation of: (i) the legitimate private or public interests that warrant sealing; (ii) the injury that 8 will result if sealing is denied; and (iii) why a less restrictive alternative to sealing is not sufficient.” 9 Civ. L.R. 79-5(c)(1). Further, under Civil Local Rule 79-5(f), for any document a party seeks to 10 seal because that document has been designated as confidential by another party or non-party, the 11 filing party must file an Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another Party’s Material 12 Should Be Sealed. Civ. L.R. 79-5(f). “Within 7 days of the motion’s filing, the Designating Party 13 must file a statement and/or declaration” to support that the document(s) at issue are sealable. 14 Civ. L.R. 79-5(f)(3). 15 II. DISCUSSION 16 In support of sealing the Video, Defendants provide evidence that Officer Pina has received 17 death threats on social media and in an incident of vandalism at the location where the incident at 18 issue in this case took place. See Defendants’ Statement, ECF No. 57 at 3–4; Offenberg Decl., 19 ECF No. 57-1 ¶¶ 6–11; id., Exs. A–D. Defendants argue that a compelling reason for sealing the 20 Video is to prevent the public from accessing images of Officer Pina so that people who wish him 21 harm are not able to use the Video to identify and target him. See Defendants’ Statement, 22 ECF No. 57 at 4–5; Offenberg Decl., ECF No. 57-1 ¶¶ 9, 12–14. Defendants further argue that by 23 publicly filing the portions of the Video with Officer Pina’s face blurred, they will ensure that the 24 public will still be able to view Officer Pina’s movements and hear his description of the incident 25 while keeping his safety protected. See Defendants’ Statement, ECF No. 57 at 4–5. While Plaintiffs 26 initially argued that the entire Video should be unsealed, they now appear to agree that public 27 disclosure of only the portions of the Video with Officer Pina’s face blurred is sufficient. See 1 The Court agrees with Defendants. Defendants have adequately shown a compelling 2 || reason—protecting Officer Pina’s safety in light of death threats—for sealing the Video. Further, 3 Defendants have provided narrowly tailored portions of the Video for public disclosure with 4 || Plaintiffs’ agreement. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ request that Exhibit 10 to 5 || Plaintiffs’ summary judgment motion remain under seal. In its place, the Court DIRECTS the 6 || parties that Exhibits E and F to the Declaration of Maren J. Clouse at ECF No. 57-2 are the only 7 || portions of the Video that may be shown publicly. 8 || I. ORDER 9 For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 10 1. Exhibit 10 to Plaintiffs’ summary judgment motion SHALL remain under seal; and 11 2. Exhibits E and F to the Declaration of Maren J. Clouse at ECF No. 57-2 are the only 12 portions of the Video that may be shown publicly. |) Dated: March 28, 2022 ham Lh han in) [SAW FLAW NEMS BETH LABSON FREEMAN 15 United States District Judge 16

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28