Regal v. County of Santa Clara

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: January 23, 2025
• Docket: 5:22-cv-04321
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 SAN JOSE DIVISION 7 8 DEVIN REGAL, et al., Case No. 22-cv-04321-BLF

9 Plaintiffs, ORDER RE PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION 10 v. TO CONSIDER WHETHER ANOTHER PARTY’S MATERIAL SHOULD BE 11 COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, et al., SEALED 12 Defendants. [Re: ECF 114]

13 14 15

16 17 Plaintiffs have filed an administrative motion to consider whether materials designated 18 confidential by Defendant County of Santa Clara (“County”) should be filed under seal. See Pls.’ 19 Mot., ECF 114. The materials in question have been submitted as exhibits to Plaintiffs’ 20 opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment and referenced in Plaintiffs’ opposition 21 brief, which have been filed provisionally under seal on the public docket. 22 As the designating party, the County has the obligation to file a statement demonstrating 23 that the materials satisfy the applicable standard for sealing. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(f)(3). Because 24 the materials are submitted in connection with a motion for summary judgment, the County must 25 demonstrate the existence of “compelling reasons” for sealing. See Applied Materials, Inc. v. 26 Demaray LLC, No. 5:20-CV-09341-EJD, 2023 WL 4409106, at *1 (N.D. Cal. July 7, 2023) (“A 27 party seeking to seal judicial records related to a dispositive motion, such as a motion for summary 1 The County has filed a statement indicating that it requests sealing only as to a video 2 || compilation of jail surveillance footage submitted manually as Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of 3 || Jonathan Marvin in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. See County’s 4 || Response, ECF 122. The County does not request sealing of any other exhibits submitted by 5 || Plaintiffs in opposition to summary judgment, nor does the County request redactions to Plaintiffs’ 6 || opposition brief. See id. 7 The Court finds that the County has shown compelling reasons for sealing the compilation 8 of jail surveillance footage, which is not otherwise publicly available and displays the layout of a 9 || unit at the Elmwood Correctional Complex, including potential entry and exit points. See 10 || Martinez Decl. 5, ECF 122-1. The footage also shows inmates who are not involved in this 11 lawsuit. See id. The security concerns posed by the footage, as well as the privacy interests of the 12 || inmates shown in the footage, are sufficient to meet the compelling reasons standard. See Ortiz v. 13 City & Cnty. of San Francisco, No. 18-CV-07727-HSG, 2020 WL 2793615, at *8 (N.D. Cal. May 14 || 29, 2020) (finding that sealing of jail surveillance video was warranted under the compelling 3 15 || reasons standard based on “security concerns, in addition to privacy concerns of third parties’’). a 16 ORDER 3 17 (1) Plaintiffs’ motion to consider whether another party’s material should be sealed is 18 GRANTED IN PART as to the video compilation of jail surveillance footage 19 submitted manually as Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of Jonathan Marvin in Opposition 20 to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. 21 (2) Plaintiffs’ motion otherwise is DENIED. As soon as is practicable, Plaintiffs SHALL 22 file their opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, and all supporting 23 exhibits other than the video compilation of jail surveillance footage, on the public 24 docket in unredacted form. 25 (3) This order terminates ECF 114. 26 27 Dated: January 23, 2025 | WL (ah a | BETH LABSON FREEMAN 28 United States District Judge