1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8
10 AASYLEI LOGGERVALE, AASYLEI HARDGE-LOGGERVALE, and 11 AAOTTAE LOGGERVALE, No. C 20-04679 WHA
12 Plaintiffs,
13 v. ORDER RE MOTIONS TO SEAL
14 COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, STEVEN HOLLAND, MONICA POPE, KEITH 15 LEEPER, ANTHONY DESOUSA, CAMERON GALLOWAY, and DOES 16 1-50, inclusive, 17 Defendants.
18 Our federal courts belong to the people. The public has every right and every interest in 19 looking over our shoulders to see why and how we grant relief (or not) and specifically what 20 record justified (or not) the relief. This is equally, if not more, true as to municipal defendants 21 as to private-party defendants. So, our court of appeals has recognized a strong presumption of 22 public access to our records. Sealing a record requires, without “hypothesis or conjecture,” a 23 compelling factual basis that outweighs the public interest in disclosure. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. 24 Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1101 (9th Cir. 2016) (emphasis added); Kamakana v. City 25 & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178–79 (9th Cir. 2006). 26 Plaintiffs, because of defendants’ privacy designations, move to file under seal certain 27 filings. Because the records listed below go to the essential elements of all claims, sealing 1 requires compelling reasons. (Contrary to defendants’ argument, the Monell claims render 2 essential the training records and records of the internal affairs investigation.) 3 The motions to seal are GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART, as indicated below. 4 The Court previously ruled on the confidentiality of “investigation reports” referenced below 5 but summary judgment has now made much of that information critical to the essential 6 elements and our orders’ decisions (see Dkt. No. 49 at 6). Defendants, for instance, made 7 much of the Big Five investigations during our hearing (September 9, 2021, Tr. at 20). 8 By now each and every one of defendants’ declarations in support of their protective 9 order have been filed late. With respect to Dkt. No. 74, the administrative motion to seal was 10 filed May 27; the declaration in support was filed June 10 (Dkt. No. 80). This is the second 11 time a declaration in support was filed late (see also Dkt. No. 49, discussing this). Plaintiffs’ 12 further administrative motion to seal at Dkt. No. 93 was filed August 19, 2021, but the third 13 affidavit in support at Dkt. No. 97 was filed late, on August 26, 2021. Again, however, some 14 of defendants’ requests are saved by the fact that a prior order herein agreed with defendants 15 that certain items should remain under seal (Dkt. No. 49 at 6). 16 Others may not. Since our order at Dkt. No. 49, defendants have made a central issue out 17 of whether deputies had reasonable suspicion to detain plaintiffs based upon the facts 18 contained in prior investigation reports. Having considered the factors identified in Glenmede 19 Trust Co. v. Thompson, 56 F.3d 476 (3d Cir. 1995), this order finds with respect to the 20 investigation reports previously allowed to be maintained under seal, that public interest favors 21 disclosure (of all but PII). 22 FILES RULING AND/OR PORTIONS PERMITTED TO 23 BE REDACTED 24 Plaintiffs’ Unredacted Motion Defendants have made a central issue out of whether 25 for Partial Summary Judgment deputies had reasonable suspicion to detain plaintiffs based upon the facts contained in those prior 26 investigations. Plaintiffs simply elaborate on 27 defendants’ overbroad claims of reasonable suspicion based upon prior investigations. As for the claims were not addressed Furthermore, defendants filed their 1 declaration in support late. Procedurally and 2 substantively, this request to seal fails. 3 _____ Under Seal ___X___ Publicly 4 Exhibit A (transcript and This order discusses only defendants’ stated 5 incident report) to Declaration justification for sealing (see Dkt. No. 80), though of Joseph S. May others may apply. Notwithstanding “sporadic” 6 mention of prior investigations, the deposition 7 transcript of Deputy Holland is central to the case. Also, again, defendants did not timely fulfill their 8 obligation to designate this deposition transcript as confidential. 9 Nevertheless, this order reaches the merits. Lacking 10 good cause to the contrary, filing this under seal will 11 not be permitted, except as to personal identifying information (i.e. only driver’s license numbers, email 12 and physical addresses, phone numbers, social security numbers, dates of birth, and signatures) in either 13 component of Exhibit A, the transcript or the incident report. See CAND L.R. 79-5(e). 14 15 ______ Under Seal ___X___ Publicly 16 Exhibits C and E to Declaration Personal identifying information, as described above, 17 of Joseph S. May may be “redacted” from this footage via blurring. The blurred version must be lodged with the court. 18 _____ Under Seal 19 ___ X ___ Publicly 20 Exhibit K, L, N, O and P to Defendants did not timely file a support declaration. 21 Declaration of Joseph S. May This is Deputy Pope’s body camera footage. Personal identifying information (if any) must be bleeped or 22 blurred from this footage, as described above. 23 ______ Under Seal ___X___ Publicly 24 Exhibit Q to Declaration of Joseph S. May Personal identifying information (if any) must be 25 bleeped or blurred from this footage. 26 _____ Under Seal 27 ___ X ___ Publicly 1 With respect to Dkt. No. 93, plaintiff’s motion to file under seal related to their 2 opposition to defendants’ motion for summary judgment, we previously granted disclosure of 3 certain records subject to a protective order, and we continue to weigh the potential harm due 4 to disclosing information related to unsolved alleged crimes, personnel records, and IA 5 investigations. 6 As to the IA investigation report, our order has been required to discuss the IA 7 investigation report and Sheriff Ahern’s note written on it in order to rule on plaintiff’s claims 8 and defendants’ defenses. To this extent, good cause requires only minimal disclosure. See In 9 re Roman Catholic Archbishop of Portland in Oregon, 661 F.3d 417, 424 (9th Cir. 2011). As 10 for the personnel records, the same interest to the public or centrality to the proceedings does 11 not outweigh the interest in privacy. 12 Unredacted Opposition to Only the following portions only may be filed under Defendants’ Motion for seal: 13 Summary Judgment 14 P. 2: 5 (from “stole items” through but not including “daughter.”) 15 P. 2: 8–9 (“The . . .” up to but not including 16 “informed.”) 17 P.8:11–13. P. 8: 24–25. 18 19 17: 19–21 (“Lieutenant . . . deputies.) 19: 14–15, 22–23 20 20: 2–5 Exhibit R to Declaration of 21 Joseph S. May Since all parties have made the other investigation reports part of the critical issue, only personal 22 identifying information may be redacted (i.e. only driver’s license numbers, email and physical addresses, 23 phone numbers, social security numbers, dates of birth, and signatures). See CAND L.R. 79-5(e). 24 25 _________ Under Seal ___X_____ Publicly 26 27 Exhibit S to Declaration of Personal identifying information, as described above, 1 Joseph S. May may be “redacted” from this footage via blurring. 2 ______ Under Seal 3 ___ X ___ Publicly Exhibit X to Declaration of Per our order at Dkt. No. 49, the exhibit may be filed 4 Joseph S. May ___X___ Under Seal 5 ______ Publicly Exhibit Y to Declaration of Per our order at Dkt. No. 49, the exhibit may be filed 6 Joseph S. May, and Exhibit EE to Declaration of Kevin E. ___X___ Under Seal 7 Gilbert (Dkt. No.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8
10 AASYLEI LOGGERVALE, AASYLEI HARDGE-LOGGERVALE, and 11 AAOTTAE LOGGERVALE, No. C 20-04679 WHA
12 Plaintiffs,
13 v. ORDER RE MOTIONS TO SEAL
14 COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, STEVEN HOLLAND, MONICA POPE, KEITH 15 LEEPER, ANTHONY DESOUSA, CAMERON GALLOWAY, and DOES 16 1-50, inclusive, 17 Defendants.
18 Our federal courts belong to the people. The public has every right and every interest in 19 looking over our shoulders to see why and how we grant relief (or not) and specifically what 20 record justified (or not) the relief. This is equally, if not more, true as to municipal defendants 21 as to private-party defendants. So, our court of appeals has recognized a strong presumption of 22 public access to our records. Sealing a record requires, without “hypothesis or conjecture,” a 23 compelling factual basis that outweighs the public interest in disclosure. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. 24 Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1101 (9th Cir. 2016) (emphasis added); Kamakana v. City 25 & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178–79 (9th Cir. 2006). 26 Plaintiffs, because of defendants’ privacy designations, move to file under seal certain 27 filings. Because the records listed below go to the essential elements of all claims, sealing 1 requires compelling reasons. (Contrary to defendants’ argument, the Monell claims render 2 essential the training records and records of the internal affairs investigation.) 3 The motions to seal are GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART, as indicated below. 4 The Court previously ruled on the confidentiality of “investigation reports” referenced below 5 but summary judgment has now made much of that information critical to the essential 6 elements and our orders’ decisions (see Dkt. No. 49 at 6). Defendants, for instance, made 7 much of the Big Five investigations during our hearing (September 9, 2021, Tr. at 20). 8 By now each and every one of defendants’ declarations in support of their protective 9 order have been filed late. With respect to Dkt. No. 74, the administrative motion to seal was 10 filed May 27; the declaration in support was filed June 10 (Dkt. No. 80). This is the second 11 time a declaration in support was filed late (see also Dkt. No. 49, discussing this). Plaintiffs’ 12 further administrative motion to seal at Dkt. No. 93 was filed August 19, 2021, but the third 13 affidavit in support at Dkt. No. 97 was filed late, on August 26, 2021. Again, however, some 14 of defendants’ requests are saved by the fact that a prior order herein agreed with defendants 15 that certain items should remain under seal (Dkt. No. 49 at 6). 16 Others may not. Since our order at Dkt. No. 49, defendants have made a central issue out 17 of whether deputies had reasonable suspicion to detain plaintiffs based upon the facts 18 contained in prior investigation reports. Having considered the factors identified in Glenmede 19 Trust Co. v. Thompson, 56 F.3d 476 (3d Cir. 1995), this order finds with respect to the 20 investigation reports previously allowed to be maintained under seal, that public interest favors 21 disclosure (of all but PII). 22 FILES RULING AND/OR PORTIONS PERMITTED TO 23 BE REDACTED 24 Plaintiffs’ Unredacted Motion Defendants have made a central issue out of whether 25 for Partial Summary Judgment deputies had reasonable suspicion to detain plaintiffs based upon the facts contained in those prior 26 investigations. Plaintiffs simply elaborate on 27 defendants’ overbroad claims of reasonable suspicion based upon prior investigations. As for the claims were not addressed Furthermore, defendants filed their 1 declaration in support late. Procedurally and 2 substantively, this request to seal fails. 3 _____ Under Seal ___X___ Publicly 4 Exhibit A (transcript and This order discusses only defendants’ stated 5 incident report) to Declaration justification for sealing (see Dkt. No. 80), though of Joseph S. May others may apply. Notwithstanding “sporadic” 6 mention of prior investigations, the deposition 7 transcript of Deputy Holland is central to the case. Also, again, defendants did not timely fulfill their 8 obligation to designate this deposition transcript as confidential. 9 Nevertheless, this order reaches the merits. Lacking 10 good cause to the contrary, filing this under seal will 11 not be permitted, except as to personal identifying information (i.e. only driver’s license numbers, email 12 and physical addresses, phone numbers, social security numbers, dates of birth, and signatures) in either 13 component of Exhibit A, the transcript or the incident report. See CAND L.R. 79-5(e). 14 15 ______ Under Seal ___X___ Publicly 16 Exhibits C and E to Declaration Personal identifying information, as described above, 17 of Joseph S. May may be “redacted” from this footage via blurring. The blurred version must be lodged with the court. 18 _____ Under Seal 19 ___ X ___ Publicly 20 Exhibit K, L, N, O and P to Defendants did not timely file a support declaration. 21 Declaration of Joseph S. May This is Deputy Pope’s body camera footage. Personal identifying information (if any) must be bleeped or 22 blurred from this footage, as described above. 23 ______ Under Seal ___X___ Publicly 24 Exhibit Q to Declaration of Joseph S. May Personal identifying information (if any) must be 25 bleeped or blurred from this footage. 26 _____ Under Seal 27 ___ X ___ Publicly 1 With respect to Dkt. No. 93, plaintiff’s motion to file under seal related to their 2 opposition to defendants’ motion for summary judgment, we previously granted disclosure of 3 certain records subject to a protective order, and we continue to weigh the potential harm due 4 to disclosing information related to unsolved alleged crimes, personnel records, and IA 5 investigations. 6 As to the IA investigation report, our order has been required to discuss the IA 7 investigation report and Sheriff Ahern’s note written on it in order to rule on plaintiff’s claims 8 and defendants’ defenses. To this extent, good cause requires only minimal disclosure. See In 9 re Roman Catholic Archbishop of Portland in Oregon, 661 F.3d 417, 424 (9th Cir. 2011). As 10 for the personnel records, the same interest to the public or centrality to the proceedings does 11 not outweigh the interest in privacy. 12 Unredacted Opposition to Only the following portions only may be filed under Defendants’ Motion for seal: 13 Summary Judgment 14 P. 2: 5 (from “stole items” through but not including “daughter.”) 15 P. 2: 8–9 (“The . . .” up to but not including 16 “informed.”) 17 P.8:11–13. P. 8: 24–25. 18 19 17: 19–21 (“Lieutenant . . . deputies.) 19: 14–15, 22–23 20 20: 2–5 Exhibit R to Declaration of 21 Joseph S. May Since all parties have made the other investigation reports part of the critical issue, only personal 22 identifying information may be redacted (i.e. only driver’s license numbers, email and physical addresses, 23 phone numbers, social security numbers, dates of birth, and signatures). See CAND L.R. 79-5(e). 24 25 _________ Under Seal ___X_____ Publicly 26 27 Exhibit S to Declaration of Personal identifying information, as described above, 1 Joseph S. May may be “redacted” from this footage via blurring. 2 ______ Under Seal 3 ___ X ___ Publicly Exhibit X to Declaration of Per our order at Dkt. No. 49, the exhibit may be filed 4 Joseph S. May ___X___ Under Seal 5 ______ Publicly Exhibit Y to Declaration of Per our order at Dkt. No. 49, the exhibit may be filed 6 Joseph S. May, and Exhibit EE to Declaration of Kevin E. ___X___ Under Seal 7 Gilbert (Dkt. No. 98) ______ Publicly 8 Exhibit Z to Declaration of Per our order at Dkt. No. 49, pp. 89–90 may be filed 9 Joseph S. May (pp. 89-90 only) ___X___ Under Seal 10 ______ Publicly Exhibits AA and BB to Exhibit AA contains IA investigation procedures. 11 Declaration of Joseph S. May With the exception of the single sentence quoted in 12 our order, the portions sought to be sealed may be redacted. Exhibit BB is the Internal Affairs 13 Memorandum. The writing by sheriff Ahern and the memo’s conclusion must be filed publicly. The 14 remainder may be redacted. 15 Exhibit CC to Declaration of This exhibit is the deposition transcript of Sgt. Jimmy 16 Joseph S. May (Ex. 35 only) Martinez, defendant’s “Person Most Knowledgeable regarding police academy training on race 17 discrimination and racial profiling.” This deposition discusses hypotheticals loosely based on the prior 18 investigations of burglaries. Defendants have made the prior burglaries a core issue of their motion for 19 summary judgment, which is also relevant to the 20 dispute over training on race discrimination. This information is of value to the public, and central to the 21 decision. The motion is DENIED. 22 ______ Under Seal ___X___ Publicly 23 24 Exhibit EE to Supplemental Per our order at Dkt. No. 49, the exhibit may be filed Declaration of Kevin E. Gilbert 25 (Dkt. No. 98) ___X___ Under Seal ______ Publicly 26 Exhibit FF to Supplemental Per our order at Dkt. No. 49, the exhibit may be filed Declaration of Kevin E. Gilbert 27 (Dkt. No. 98) ___X___ Under Seal Exhibit GG to Supplemental Per our order at Dkt. No. 49, the exhibit may be filed | Declaration of Kevin E. Gilbert 2 (Dkt. No. 98) __X Under Seal Publicl 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 Dated: November 29, 2021. 5 6 ‘A ee 7 {Aq ALSUP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 8 9 10 11 e 12
15 16 €
Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28