Spiers v. City and County of San Francisco

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 DACARI SPIERS, Case No. 20-cv-01357-JSC Plaintiff, Case No. 20-cv-04276-JSC 8 v. 9 ORDER RE: CHALLENGE TO 10 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN CONFIDENTIALITY DESIGNATION FRANCISCO, Re: Dkt. Nos. 38 11 Defendant.

13 BREONNA RICHARD, 14 Plaintiff, 15 v.

16 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, 17 Defendant. 18

19 Plaintiffs’ motion to remove the confidentiality designation from the police body-worn 20 camera (BWC) video is granted because Defendant has failed to demonstrate a particularized harm 21 that would support designating the video as confidential. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. 22 Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210 (9th Cir. 2002). Defendant’s arguments to the contrary are 23 particularly unpersuasive in light of the San Francisco Police Department’s release of a portion of 24 the BWC video. See Fed. R. Civ. P 26(c); Harmon v. City of Santa Clara, 323 F.R.D. 617, 625 25 (N.D. Cal. 2018) (finding that a party’s privacy concerns become moot when a confidential video 26 is released on the internet). Moreover, even if Defendant had demonstrated a particularized harm, 27 the Glenmede factors do not weigh in its favor for the reasons articulated by Judge Cousins in 1 2020) (finding that police officers that are in the public eye everyday have a lowered expectation 2 || of privacy). See Glenmede Trust Co. v. Thompson, 56 F.3d 476, 483 (3d Cir.1995). 3 Plaintiffs’ motion to sanction opposing counsel is denied for the reason stated at oral 4 || argument—the request was raised in a reply brief. 5 This Order disposes of Docket No. 38. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 || Dated: February 5, 2020 8 ’ ne 9 ACQUELINE SCOTT COR 10 United States Magistrate Judge 11 12

15 16

= 17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28