V.G.M. v. City of Salinas

Opinion

1 2 6 7 V.G.M., et al., Case No. 19-cv-08007-BLF

8 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 9 v. FILE UNDER SEAL

10 CITY OF SALINAS, et al., 11 Defendants.

12 13 Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ administrative motion to file under seal portions of the 14 Minor’s Compromise petition in order to protect the identify of minor, V.G.M. See Mot., ECF 52. 15 Defendants do not oppose this request. For the reasons stated below, Plaintiffs’ motion is 17 “Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records 18 and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City and County of 19 Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 20 U.S. 589, 597 n.7 (1978)). Consequently, filings that are “more than tangentially related to the 21 merits of a case” may be sealed only upon a showing of “compelling reasons” for sealing. Ctr. for 22 Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1101-02 (9th Cir. 2016). Filings that are only 23 tangentially related to the merits may be sealed upon a lesser showing of “good cause.” Id. at 24 1097. In this District, parties seeking to seal judicial records must follow Civil Local Rule 79-5, 25 which requires, inter alia, that a sealing request be “narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of 26 sealable material.” Civil L.R. 79-5(b). 27 Courts have granted protective orders to protect confidential settlement agreements. 1 determining whether a confidential settlement agreement should be sealed, the Court will apply 2 the “good cause” standard. Id. at 1210. Additionally, other courts in this Circuit have applied the 3 “good cause” standard to seal the identifying information of minors. See Cherry v. Clark Cty. Sch. 4 Dist., No. 2:11-CV-1783 JCM GWFP, 2013 WL 3944285, at *12 (D. Nev. July 22, 2013) (“the 5 public has no legitimate interest in the actual identity of any particular parent or student’); see also 6 Fotinos ex rel. R.F. v. Fotinos, No. C 12-953 CW, 2013 WL 1149778, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 19, 7 2013) (ordering plaintiff to “file motions to seal documents or portions of documents that contain 8 other sensitive information related to her minor children”). 9 The Court finds that Plaintiffs have articulated sufficient reasons for sealing the Settlement 10 Agreement under the “good cause” standard in arguing that the minor’s identity should be 11 protected from public disclosure. See Mot. 1. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion 12 to file the Minor’s Compromise petition under seal with the minor’s name redacted. 14 Dated: March 25, 2021 kom Lh han YI tn) 16 BETH LABSON FREEMAN 17 United States District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28