L.S. v. Henderson

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

L.S., et al., Case No. 20-cv-04637-VC

Plaintiffs, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ v. MOTION TO SEAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE RICHARD HENDERSON, et al., Re: Dkt. No. 82 Defendants.

The plaintiffs’ second administrative motion to file documents under seal is denied. “Those who seek to maintain the secrecy of documents attached” to non-dispositive motions must show good cause. Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1180 (9th Cir. 2006); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). As to Exhibits D and E, both declarations appear to be available on the public docket of Villanueva v. State of California in the Central District of California, Case No. 8:17-cv-01302. No good cause exists to seal documents that are already publicly available elsewhere. As to the remaining exhibits, the plaintiffs have failed to sufficiently articulate sound reasons for sealing the documents. The declaration from Sergeant Zhou states that “[t]his matter is an open murder investigation” and opines that “[p]ublic disclosure of the records of the investigation of this incident . . . could potentially taint or negatively impact any future prosecution arising from this incident.” Dkt. No. 85. Absent additional information, these conclusory statements do not provide enough information to meet the “good cause” standard. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). The motion is denied entirely, without prejudice to filing a renewed request that is narrower, more targeted, and that offers a stronger justification for shielding the information from public disclosure. The renewed request must be filed within 7 days and the parties need not resubmit unredacted materials. If no motion is filed within 7 days, all the materials will be unsealed. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: November 5, 2021 VINCE CHHABRIA United States District Judge