Troy Sykes v. Omar Galindo, et al.

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: March 12, 2026
• Docket: 1:23-cv-01770
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TROY SYKES, Case No. 1:23-cv-01770-KES -EPG (PC) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ 14 REQUEST TO SEAL DOCUMENTS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 15 OMAR GALINDO, et al., CONSIDERATION ONLY 16 Defendants. (ECF No. 53) 17 18 This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ request to seal exhibits (ECF No. 53) filed 19 in support of Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 52). Specifically, Defendants 20 request to seal Exhibit A to Lt. Beas’ declaration, which includes a handwritten message on a 21 CDCR 7362- Health Care Services Request Form discovered inside a Health Care Services drop 22 box (ECF No. 53 at 2-3) and Sections of Plaintiff’s central file records deemed Confidential (Id. 23 at 3), which are authenticated at Exhibit C by the Declaration of Preeti K. Bajwa and designated 24 at Exhibits C1 and C2. Defendants assert that they produced these documents to Plaintiff pursuant 25 to this Court’s order (ECF No. 45). 26 “Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records 27 and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City & Cty. of 28 Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 1 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)); see also Local Rule 141(a) (“Documents may be sealed only by 2 written order of the Court, upon the showing required by applicable law.”). Unless a particular 3 court record is one “traditionally kept secret,” a “strong presumption in favor of access” is the 4 starting point for this Court’s inquiry. Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178 (citations omitted). 5 To overcome this strong presumption, a party seeking to seal a judicial record must meet 6 the compelling-reasons standard by articulating compelling reasons, which are supported by 7 specific facts, that outweigh the historical right of access and the public policies favoring 8 disclosure. Id. at 1178–79; see Reberger v. Vern, No. 3:17-cv-00077-MMD-WGC, 2019 WL 9 5889293, at *2 (D. Nev. Nov. 12, 2019) (applying compelling-reasons standard where defendants 10 sought “to file exhibits under seal in connection with their motion for summary judgment”). The 11 Court must “conscientiously balance” the “competing interests” of the public and the party 12 seeking to seal the judicial record. Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (citation omitted). The 13 determination as to what constitutes a “compelling reason” is within the Court’s “sound 14 discretion.” Center for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Group, LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1097 (9th Cir. 2016) 15 (citation omitted). 16 Here, Defendants argue that “[d]isclosure of these documents would jeopardize the integrity 17 of CDCR’s investigative process, the safety of named confidential informants, the security of the 18 institutions at which those informants are housed, and the public safety.”1 (ECF No. 53 at 2-3). 19 Defendants argue that disclosure of these exhibits “could be used for improper purposes” and 20 “lead to retaliation against confidential informants, threatening the safety of the informants and 21 the institutions in which they are housed.” (Id. at 2-3). “Disclosure would provide prison gangs 22 and disruptive groups information regarding CDCR’s investigative protocols and methods they 23 could use to evade investigation.” (Id. at 3). Defendants request that “these documents remain 24 under seal and for in camera review only until this Court has issued a final ruling on Defendants’ 25 motion for summary judgment, at which point the documents should be destroyed by the Court or 26 returned to Defendants’ counsel.” (Id. at 2 (emphasis in original)). 27 1 Defendants have emailed to the Court’s email inbox the exhibits identified in their motion to seal. See 28 Local Rule 141(b). ] The Court finds Defendants’ asserted security concerns—that staff and inmates could be 2 || endangered were information about Exhibits A and Exhibits Cl and C2 were to be made public 3 || —+to be sufficiently compelling to seal for purposes of summary judgment only. As such the 4 | Court grants Defendants’ motion to seal. (/d.) However, this order does not preclude the Court 5 || from referencing and quoting these exhibits in its order. To the extent these exhibits form the 6 || basis for the decision on a dispositive motion, the public’s interest in the litigation would 7 || outweigh the need for safety and security.” Moreover, nothing in this order governs the treatment 8 | of these documents at trial. 9 Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion to File Records Under Seal and For In Camera Review 10 || Only (ECF No. 53) is GRANTED for summary judgment consideration only as described above. 1] D IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 | Dated: _ Mareh 12, 2026 [sf ee ey 14 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 ? The Court appreciates the sensitivity of certain information and will not include any 28 || unnecessary sensitive information such as the identity of non-party inmates.