Hernandez v. County of Monterey

CourtDistrict Court, N.D. California
DecidedJuly 21, 2023
Docket5:13-cv-02354
StatusUnknown

This text of Hernandez v. County of Monterey (Hernandez v. County of Monterey) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Hernandez v. County of Monterey, (N.D. Cal. 2023).

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 SAN JOSE DIVISION 7 8 JESSE HERNANDEZ, et al., Case No. 13-cv-02354-BLF

9 Plaintiffs, ORDER RE ADMISNISTRATIVE 10 v. MOTIONS TO FILE UNDER SEAL

11 COUNTY OF MONTEREY, et al., [Re: ECF 776, 787, 793] 12 Defendants.

13 14

15 16 Plaintiffs filed this suit to obtain relief from Defendants’ alleged failure to provide inmates 17 at the Monterey County Jail (“Jail”) with adequate medical and mental health care, reasonable 18 accommodations for disabilities, and protection from violence. See Compl., ECF 1. The Court 19 thereafter approved the parties’ Settlement Agreement. See Order For Final Approval of 20 Settlement, ECF 494. Plaintiffs have filed a motion to enforce both the Settlement Agreement and 21 the Implementation Plan developed by Defendant County of Monterey (“County”) and Defendant 22 Wellpath, Inc. (“Wellpath”),1 which is set for hearing on August 24, 2023 (“Enforcement 23 Motion”). See Enforcement Mot., ECF 788. 24 This order addresses three administrative motions to seal briefing and documents filed in 25 connection with Plaintiffs’ Enforcement Motion. First, Plaintiffs have filed a motion to consider 26 whether to seal in their entirety more than thirty reports prepared by court-appointed neutral 27 1 monitors tasked with determining Defendants’ compliance with the Settlement Agreement and 2 Implementation Plan (ECF 776). Plaintiffs filed this motion based on Defendants’ assertion that 3 the neutral monitor reports should be sealed. Plaintiffs themselves oppose sealing the neutral 4 monitor reports in their entirety. However, Plaintiffs and Defendants jointly agree to the sealing 5 of limited portions of the neutral monitor reports and other documents filed in connection with 6 Plaintiffs’ Enforcement Motion. The second motion before the Court is the parties’ joint motion 7 to seal limited portions of Plaintiffs’ Enforcement Motion and supporting evidence, including 8 neutral monitor reports, to protect personal identifying information of inmates and care providers, 9 as well as certain individual custody and medical records (ECF 787). The third motion before the 10 Court is the parties’ joint motion to seal limited portions of Plaintiffs’ reply evidence to protect 11 personal identifying information of inmates and care providers, as well as certain individual 12 custody and medical records (ECF 793). 13 For the reasons discussed below, the motion to seal the neutral monitor reports in their 14 entirety is DENIED. The parties’ joint sealing motions, seeking to seal limited portions of the 15 neutral monitor reports and other documents filed in connection with Plaintiffs’ Enforcement 16 Motion, are GRANTED. 17 I. LEGAL STANDARD 18 “Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records 19 and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of 20 Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). Consequently, access to motions and their 21 attachments that are “more than tangentially related to the merits of a case” may be sealed only 22 upon a showing of “compelling reasons” for sealing. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 23 809 F.3d 1092, 1101–02 (9th Cir. 2006). Filings that are only tangentially related to the merits 24 may be sealed upon a lesser showing of “good cause.” Id. at 1097. 25 In this district, all parties requesting sealing also must comply with Civil Local Rule 79-5. 26 Under that rule, a party moving to seal a document in whole or in part must file a statement 27 identifying the legitimate private or public interests that warrant sealing, the injury that will result 1 5(c)(1). A supporting declaration shall be submitted if necessary. Civ. L.R. 79-5(c)(2). Finally, 2 the moving party must submit “a proposed order that is narrowly tailored to seal only the sealable 3 material[.]” Civ. L.R. 79-5(c)(3). 4 II. DISCUSSION 5 The sealing motions before the Court relate to Plaintiffs’ Enforcement Motion, in which 6 Plaintiffs ask the Court to enforce the terms of the Settlement Agreement and Implementation Plan 7 regarding Jail conditions. Because the requested enforcement goes to the heart of the relief sought 8 in this lawsuit, the Court applies the compelling reasons standard for sealing rather than the good 9 cause standard applicable to matters only tangentially related to the merits. 10 A. Motion to Consider Sealing of Neutral Monitor Reports (ECF 776) 11 Plaintiffs have filed a motion to consider whether to seal, in their entirety, more than thirty 12 reports prepared by court-appointed neutral monitors tasked with determining Defendants’ 13 compliance with the Settlement Agreement and Implementation Plan. Those reports, and other 14 documents citing to the reports, are submitted by Plaintiffs as Exhibits 1-49, 53, and 59 to the 15 Trapani Declaration and Exhibits 3-4 to the Swearingen Declaration. Plaintiffs have conditionally 16 filed those documents under seal, and have conditionally redacted their Enforcement Motion to the 17 extent it contains findings and quotations from the neutral monitor reports. In Plaintiffs’ view, the 18 neutral monitor reports should not be sealed in their entirety. Plaintiffs filed the motion to 19 consider sealing the neutral monitor reports because Defendants take the position that they are 20 confidential and should be sealed in their entirety. Where the moving party requests sealing of 21 materials that have been designated confidential by another party, the designating party has the 22 burden to establish that the materials should be sealed. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(f). 23 Defendant County has filed a response to Plaintiffs’ motion, asserting that the neutral 24 monitor reports should be sealed in their entirety for three reasons. First, the County argues that 25 the neutral monitor reports fall within the Protective Order issued in this case. The Protective 26 Order provides a mechanism whereby parties to this action may designate documents produced in 27 discovery as “confidential” under certain circumstances, such as when the documents contain 1 information protected from disclosure under state or federal law. See Protective Order, ECF 401. 2 The neutral monitor reports were not produced in discovery and therefore do not appear to fall 3 within the scope of the Protective Order. The County has not shown that it ever designated the 4 neutral monitor reports as “confidential” pursuant to the Protective Order. Even if the County had 5 done so, this Court’s Civil Local Rules expressly provide that “[r]eference to a stipulation or 6 protective order that allows a party to designate certain documents as confidential is not sufficient 7 to establish that a document, or portions thereof, are sealable.” Civ. L.R. 7-5(c). 8 Second, the County contends that the court-appointed neutral monitors understood that 9 their reports would be strictly confidential, and wanted the reports to be strictly confidential. The 10 County submits the declarations of two neutral monitors, Bruce P. Barnett, M.D. and James D. 11 Vess, Ph.D. See Barnett Decl., ECF 782-1; Vess Decl., ECF 782-2. Dr. Barnett states in his 12 declaration that it was his understanding and intent that his reports would be confidential, and that 13 understanding allowed him to be forthright in his statements. See Barnett Decl. ¶¶ 3-4. Dr. Vess 14 makes identical statements in his declaration. See Vess Decl. ¶¶ 3-5. The County has not cited, 15 and the Court has not discovered, any authority for the proposition that a court-appointed 16 monitor’s desire for confidentiality constitutes a “compelling reason” for sealing.

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

Related

Center for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Group, LLC
809 F.3d 1092 (Ninth Circuit, 2016)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Hernandez v. County of Monterey, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hernandez-v-county-of-monterey-cand-2023.