Graff v. City of Vallejo

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: March 19, 2025
• Docket: 2:18-cv-02848
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SHERRY GRAFF, No. 2:18-cv-02848-DC-CKD 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST TO SEAL EXHIBIT NO. 8 TO 14 CITY OF VALLEJO, et al., THE DECLARATION OF PATRICK BUELNA FILED IN SUPPORT OF 15 Defendants. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT 16 (Doc. No. 44) 17 18 On September 24, 2024, Plaintiff filed a notice of her request to seal Exhibit 8 to the 19 declaration of her counsel, Attorney Patrick Buelna, which Plaintiff filed in support of her motion 20 for partial summary judgment. (Doc. No. 44.) In her request, Plaintiff explains that Exhibit 8 to 21 the Buelna declaration consists of “photographs of the injuries on her breasts” and is therefore 22 “private and appropriate for seal.” (Id.) Defendants did not submit any opposition to Plaintiff’s 23 request to seal Exhibit 8 to the Buelna declaration. 24 The court recognizes that all documents filed with the court are presumptively public. San 25 Jose Mercury News, Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Court, 187 F.3d 1096, 1103 (9th Cir. 1999) (“It is well- 26 established that the fruits of pretrial discovery are, in the absence of a court order to the contrary, 27 presumptively public.”). However, courts may permit a party to file under seal documents 28 supporting a motion for summary judgment where that party shows “compelling reasons” to 1 support maintaining secrecy of those documents. Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 2 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). “In general, ‘compelling reasons’ sufficient to . . . justify sealing 3 court records exist when such ‘court files might . . . become a vehicle for improper purposes,’ 4 such as the use of records to gratify private spite, promote public scandal, circulate libelous 5 statements, or release trade secrets.” Id. at 1179 (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 6 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). 7 Here, the court finds Plaintiff has shown compelling reasons exist to file Exhibit 8 to the 8 Buelna declaration under seal because the photographs in that exhibit show her exposed breasts 9 and thus might become a vehicle for improper purposes. See Valley Broad. Co. v. U.S. Dist. 10 Court, 798 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1986) (explaining that the presumptive right to public 11 access may be overcome where there is a “likelihood of an improper use, ‘including publication 12 of scandalous, libelous, pornographic, or trade secret materials’”) (citation omitted). To be sure, 13 filing nude photographs on a public docket is not appropriate, and thus sealing of Exhibit 8 is 14 undoubtedly appropriate. See Schottenstein v. Lee, No. 22-cv-119-DLC, 2023 WL 8584201, at *1 15 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 11, 2023) (“That it is necessary to inform an attorney of this court that he may not 16 file nude photographs on the public docket is startling.”). The court will therefore grant Plaintiff’s 17 request to file under seal Exhibit 8 to the Buelna declaration filed in support of Plaintiff’s motion 18 for partial summary judgment. 19 Accordingly, 20 1. Plaintiff’s request to seal (Doc. No. 44) is GRANTED; 21 2. Exhibit 8 to the declaration of Plaintiff’s counsel Patrick Buelna, filed in support 22 of Plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment, shall be filed under seal, to be 23 accessed only by the court and the parties; and 24 ///// 25 ///// 26 ///// 27 ///// 28 ///// 1 3. Plaintiff shall send a PDF copy of Exhibit 8 to the Buelna declaration via email to 2 ApprovedSealed @caed.uscourts.gov for filing under seal on the docket in this 3 case. 4 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. □ 6 | Dated: _ March 18, 2025 EQUI cs Dena Coggins 7 United States District Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28