Pierce v. East Bay Municipal Utility District

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: February 23, 2023
• Docket: 3:21-cv-04325
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAJI PIERCE, et al., Case No. 21-cv-04325-AGT Plaintiffs, y. ORDER ON MOTION TO SEAL Re: Dkt. No. 72 EAST BAY MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT, et al., Defendants. Defendants have moved to seal excerpts from Dorian West Blair’s deposition transcript. Defendants submitted these excerpts with their motion for summary judgment. See Dkt. 72-1. The only reason defendants offer for sealing the excerpts is that the Court designated West Blair’s deposition as confidential. See Dkt. 73-1 at 11 n.2; Dkt. 42. That designation isn’t a “compelling reason” for sealing the deposition transcript at the summary judgment stage. Kamakana y. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006) (simplified); see also Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1136 (9th Cir. 2003) (“[T]he pre- sumption of [public] access is not rebutted where, as here, documents subject to a protective order are filed under seal as attachments to a dispositive motion.”). West Blair was formerly EBMUD’s diversity and inclusion officer. She testified about matters relevant to the merits of the case, and the submitted excerpts of her deposition don’t reveal anything that must be withheld from public view. Defendants’ motion to seal is denied. By March 3, 2023, defendants must file a public version of the West Blair deposition excerpts, along with an unredacted version of the motion for summary judgment. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: February 23, 2023 Alex G. Tse United States Magistrate Judge