Mitchell v. County of Contra Costa

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 KESHAWN FULTON MITCHELL, 7 Case No. 21-cv-05014-DMR Plaintiff, 8 v. ORDER RE: ADMINISTRATIVE 9 MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, et al., 10 Re: Dkt. No. 76 Defendants. 11

12 Defendants filed a motion for partial summary judgment and an administrative motion to 13 file two exhibits in support of the motion under seal. [Docket Nos. 75, 76.] This order addresses 14 only the motion to seal. 15 I. LEGAL STANDARDS 16 The Ninth Circuit established standards governing requests to seal in Kamakana v. City & 17 Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1180 (9th Cir. 2006). When a party seeks to seal judicial 18 records filed in connection with dispositive motions, a “compelling reasons” standard applies. Id. 19 at 1179. This standard derives from the common law right “to inspect and copy public records 20 and documents, including judicial records and documents.” Id. at 1178 (citation and internal 21 quotation marks omitted). To limit this common law right of access, a party seeking to seal 22 judicial records must show that “compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings . . . 23 outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure.” Id. at 1178-79 24 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). “[A] ‘good cause’ showing alone will not suffice 25 to fulfill the ‘compelling reasons’ standard that a party must meet to rebut the presumption of 26 access to dispositive pleadings and attachments.” Id. at 1180. As the court in Kamakana stated:

27 In general, “compelling reasons” sufficient to outweigh the public’s such as the use of records to gratify private spite, promote public 1 scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets. . . . The mere fact that the production of records may lead to a litigant’s 2 embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will not, without more, compel the court to seal its records. 3 4 Id. at 1179 (citing Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978)) (citation and 5 internal quotation marks omitted). 6 II. DISCUSSION 7 Defendants seek to file two exhibits under seal in their entirety: Commission on Peace 8 Officer Standards and Training (“POST”) training profiles of Defendants Thomas Brook and Kyle 9 Emley filed as Exhibits I and K to the appendix of evidence in support of Defendants’ motion for 10 partial summary judgment.1 Defendants contend that the exhibits are portions of the individual 11 Defendants’ personnel files and that they are “presumptively shielded from disclosure,” citing 12 Sanchez v. City of Santa Ana, 936 F.2d 1027, 1033-34 (9th Cir. 1990).2 Mot. 2. 13 The exhibits at issue are relevant to Defendants’ arguments regarding Plaintiff’s claim for 14 municipal liability pursuant to Monell v. Department of Social Services of City of New York, 436 15 U.S. 658 (1978). The court denied that portion of the motion without prejudice to Defendants’ re- 16 filing a motion for summary judgment on the Monell claim after the parties conduct additional 17 discovery. [See Docket No. 93.] Accordingly, the administrative motion to seal Exhibits I and K 18 is denied as moot, since the court did not rely on the exhibits in ruling on the motion for partial 19 summary judgment. 20 The practical effect of this ruling is that the exhibits will remain sealed. If Defendants seek 21 to seal these or any other exhibits in connection with future motions, they must file an 22 administrative motion to file under seal that satisfies the standards set forth in Kamakana. Future 23

24 1 The court notes that Defendants labeled the exhibits in question as Exhibits I and K to the appendix of evidence but labeled them Exhibits A and B to the administrative motion to seal. The 25 labeling of exhibits to any future administrative motion(s) to seal must be consistent with how they are attached to the original pleading; i.e., Defendants should have labeled the exhibits at issue 26 as Exhibits I and K to the administrative motion to avoid confusion.

27 2 Defendants also cite California Penal Code section 827(a) in support of sealing, but section 827 1 administrative motions to seal must also comply with the Civil Local Rules, which provide that 2 || “{a] party must explore all reasonable alternatives to filing documents under seal, minimize the 3 number of documents filed under seal, and avoid wherever possible sealing entire documents (as 4 || opposed to merely redacting the truly sensitive information in a document).” Civ. L.R. 79-5(a). 5 || Citation to a case in which a court noted the “confidential nature” of police officer personnel files 6 || is insufficient to satisfy these requirements. See Sanchez, 936 F.2d at 1034 (finding no abuse of 7 discretion where district court denied plaintiffs access to police officers’ personnel files where 8 || “[flocused discovery could have been employed” to obtain statistical data). 9 || I. CONCLUSION 10 For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ administrative motion to file under seal is denied as 11 moot. DISTR □□ Lor a 12 aD OS 1D © 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. a □ > gO ORP 14 || Dated: May 8, 2023 15 □ An DOowtiagy, A deere pal 2 16 euaanhy/S

□□ Be ES Z 18 Ww D □□ oO ISTRIC 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28