Stratton v. Oroville City Elementary School District

Opinion

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10 BROCK STRATTON, NICOLE Case No.: 2:23-cv-00964-TLN-KJN STRATTON, C.S., a minor by and 11 through his guardian ad litem BROCK 12 STRATTON, O RER QD UE ER S G TR TA ON ST EIN AG L ED XE HFE IBN ID TA AN FT IS L’ ED IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ 13 Plaintiffs, MOTIONS TO DISMISS

14 vs. 15 OROVILLE CITY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT, ELIZABETH 16 MGBAM, KIMBERLY TYLER, JOHN 17 BETTENCOURT, SPENCER HOLTOM; and DOES 1-30, 18 Defendants. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 Defendants have filed a request to file under seal Exhibit A to the Declaration of 2 || Spencer Holtom, which 1s the video of the underlying incident referenced by Plaintiffs in 3 || paragraphs 25, 26, and 31 of their Complaint, in its entirety being filed in connection with 4 || Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss. For the reasons set forth below, the request is GRANTED. 5 As noted in Defendants’ Request to Seal, because the document sought to be sealed is 6 || being filed in connection with a dispositive motion, Defendants must demonstrate 7 || “compelling reasons” to justify the sealing order. Kamakana v. City & Cnty of Honolulu, 447 8 || F.3d 1172, 1180 (9th Cir. 2006). Defendants have done so in this case. The document 9 || contains a video recording of Plaintiff C.S., a minor. In the video, Plaintiff C.S.’s face is 10 || shown and as such, so is his identity. As a minor, Plaintiff C.S. has a cognizable privacy 11 |} interest in not having his identity released to the public. See Breed v. U.S. Dist. Court for 12 || Northern Dist. of California, 542 F.2d 1114, 1115 (9th Cir. 1976) (recognizing minors’ 13 || privacy interest in not having their identities disclosed); Juo Huei Lee, 2014 US. Dist. 14 || LEXIS 20686 *7-8 (stating that the public’s interest in plaintiffs identity was low where the 15 || subject matter of the suit concerned sensitive information concerning a minor); see also Fed. 16 || R. Civ. P. 5.2(a)(3) (prohibiting the disclosure of the name of a person known to be a minor 17 ||1n any paper filed in federal court). Any interest that the public may have in seeing the 18 || content of the video recording of the incident underlying Plaintiffs’ Complaint is outweighed 19 || by the fact that it would require the disclosure of the identity of a minor. 20 Based on the above, the following shall be filed under seal:

73 Holtom 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. / {i / rsh cen ff DATED: August 7, 2023 “ . ) bia HW

27 Troy L. Nuhlep> 08 United States District Judge