Paredes v. City of San Jose

Opinion

1 2 6 7 ANTHONY LUIS PAREDES, Case No. 22-cv-00758-BLF

8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 9 v. SEAL

10 CITY OF SAN JOSE, et al., [Re: ECF No. 61] 11 Defendants.

12 13 Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Administrative Motion to Seal videos submitted with his 14 opposition to Defendants’ motion to dismiss. Mot., ECF No. 61. Defendants have submitted a 15 statement in support of Plaintiff’s motion. Statement, ECF No. 70. For the following reasons the 16 motion to seal is GRANTED. 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 & Cty. of 20 Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, Inc., 435 21 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). Accordingly, when considering a sealing request, “a ‘strong 22 presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.” Id. (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. 23 Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). Parties seeking to seal judicial records relating to 24 motions that are “more than tangentially related to the underlying cause of action” bear the burden 25 of overcoming the presumption with “compelling reasons” that outweigh the general history of 26 access and the public policies favoring disclosure. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., 809 F.3d 27 1092, 1099 (9th Cir. 2016); Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178–79. 1 must file a statement identifying the legitimate private or public interests that warrant sealing, the 2 || injury that will result if sealing is denied, and why a less restrictive alternative to sealing is not 3 sufficient. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(c)(1). A supporting declaration shall be submitted if necessary. See 4 || Civ. L.R. 79-5(c)(2). Finally, the moving party must submit “a proposed order that is narrowly 5 tailored to seal only the sealable material[.]” Civ. L.R. 79-5(c)(3). 6 Il. DISCUSSION 7 Plaintiff offers the videos in support of his opposition to Defendants’ motion to dismiss. 8 Because that motion goes to the merits of Plaintiffs claims, the compelling reasons standard 9 applies. 10 The Court finds that compelling reasons exist to seal the videos. First, the videos contain 11 footage of third parties who were arrested by the police but are not involved in this case. See Ortiz 12 v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, No. 18-CV-07727-HSG, 2020 WL 2793615, at *8 (N.D. Cal. 13 || May 29, 2020) (relying, in part, on “privacy concerns of third parties” in granting motion to seal 14 || jail surveillance videos under compelling reasons standard). Second, the Court did not consider 3 || the videos in deciding whether to grant Defendants’ motion to dismiss, as they were not part of the a 16 relevant pleading. Cf Arpin v. Santa Clara Valley Transp. Agency, 261 F.3d 912, 925 (9th Cir. 3 17 || 2001) (noting that evidence outside the complaint “should not be considered in ruling on a motion 18 to dismiss”). Thus, disclosure of the videos will not serve the public interest in understanding the 19 || judicial process at this stage. Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178-79. 20 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's motion to seal the videos WITHOUT 21 PREJUDICE to unsealing if the videos are later considered by the Court. 23 24 || Dated: August 8, 2023

BETH LABSON FREEMAN 26 United States District Judge 27 28