Vaughn v. Parker

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: September 12, 2019
• Docket: 3:18-cv-02098
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SHARIFFE VAUGHN, Case No.: 18-cv-2098-JAH-MDD

12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S 13 v. MOTION TO FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL 14 CORRECTIONAL OFFICER A.

PARKER, 15 Defendant. [ECF No. 45] 16 17 Plaintiff Shariffe Vaughn, a state prisoner, filed this civil rights action 18 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1). On August 1, 2019, Defendant 19 Correctional Officer A. Parker (“Defendant”) filed a motion for summary 20 judgment. (ECF No. 37). Plaintiff opposes the motion and seeks to file 21 evidence supporting his opposition under seal. (ECF Nos. 44, 45). Defendant 22 avers that the supporting evidence submitted should not be filed under seal 23 (ECF No. 48) and Plaintiff replied (ECF No. 49). For the reasons stated 24 herein, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to file documents under seal. 25 I. LEGAL STANDARD 26 Courts have historically recognized a “general right to inspect and copy 1 Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 n.7 (1978). “Unless a particular 2 court record is one ‘traditionally kept secret,’ a ‘strong presumption in favor 3 of access is the starting point.” Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 4 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. 5 Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). “The presumption of access is 6 ‘based on the need for federal courts, although independent—indeed, 7 particularly because they are independent—to have a measure of 8 accountability and for the public to have confidence in the administration of 9 justice.” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th 10 Cir. 2016) (quoting United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1048 (2d Cir. 11 1995)). 12 When a party moves to file under seal a motion or documents attached 13 to a motion, the focus is on the underlying motion and whether it is “more 14 than tangentially related to the underlying cause of action.” Ctr. for Auto 15 Safety, 809 F.3d at 1099. If the motion is more than tangentially related to 16 the merits, like here, the movant must show compelling reasons for 17 overcoming the presumption in favor of public access. See id. at 1096-99. 18 Generally, a party seeking to seal a judicial record can overcome the 19 presumption in favor of access by “articulat[ing] compelling reasons 20 supported by specific factual findings . . . that outweigh the general history of 21 access and the public policies favoring disclosure, such as the public interest 22 in understanding the judicial process.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178 23 (citations omitted) (internal quotations marks omitted). “In turn, the court 24 must ‘conscientiously balance[] the competing interests’ of the public and the 25 party who seeks to keep certain judicial records secret.” Id. at 1179 (quoting 26 Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1135). “What constitutes a ‘compelling reason’ is ‘best left 1 1097 (quoting Nixon, 435 U.S. at 599). 2 II. ANALYSIS 3 Plaintiff seeks to seal several inmate declarations in support of his 4 opposition to Defendant’s motion for summary judgment for “considerations 5 of confidentiality and individual safety.” (ECF Nos. 45 at 2, 45-1 at 1). 6 Plaintiff explains that “publishing confidential information in a prison 7 context” subjects inmates to potential “retribution,” “negatively affect[ing] 8 the[ir] well-being,” and will “dissuade others from reporting wrongdoing by 9 correctional officers.” (ECF No. 49 at 2). Plaintiff claims that “hundreds of 10 years of human history . . . demonstrate[ing] the cruelty of prison staff 11 against prisoners” supports his assertions of potential retribution, dissuasion 12 of others from reporting wrongdoing, and threat to the inmates’ well-being. 13 (Id. at 3). Defendant opposes sealing the declarations, arguing Plaintiff fails 14 to meet the compelling reasons standard. (ECF No. 48 at 4). 15 As indicated previously, the movant must “articulate reasons supported 16 by specific factual findings” to warrant sealing supporting declarations 17 related to a dispositive motion, such as a motion for summary judgment. 18 Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178 (internal quotation marks omitted). Here, there 19 are insufficient facts to support the alleged harm. As presented to the Court, 20 Plaintiff’s concerns regarding retaliation, retribution, or dissuasion of others 21 from reporting wrongdoing is speculation. The Court must rule on motions to 22 seal “without relying on hypothesis or conjecture.” Id. at 1179 (quoting 23 Hagestad v. Tragesser, 49 F.3d 1430, 1434 (9th Cir. 1995)). Accordingly, 24 Plaintiff does not meet the compelling reasons standard. 25 III. CONCLUSION 26 Based on the foregoing, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to seal 1 ||supporting evidence for the opposition to Defendant’s motion for summary 9 ||judgment, Plaintiff must file them on the docket on or before September 20, 3 || 2019. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: September 12, 2019 + uk | [ Hon. Mitchell D. Dembin 7 United States Magistrate Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27