Wheatcroft v. Glendale, City of

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Johnny Wheatcroft, et al., No. CV-18-02347-PHX-MTL

10 Plaintiffs, ORDER

11 v. NOT FOR PUBLICATION

12 City of Glendale, et al.,

13 Defendants. 14 15 Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion for Leave to File Under Partial Seal 16 Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 247), Defendants’ Motion for Leave to 17 File Non-Electronic Exhibits in Support of Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment 18 (Doc. 248), Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File Non-Electronic Exhibits in Support of 19 Plaintiffs’ Response to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 262), 20 Defendants’ Motion for Leave to File Under Partial Seal Defendants’ Reply in Support of 21 their Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 268), and Defendants’ Motion for Leave to File 22 Exhibits in Support of Defendants’ Reply in Support of their Motion for Summary 23 Judgment Under Seal (Doc. 269). Neither Defendants nor Plaintiffs filed a response in 24 opposition to any of these motions. The deadline to do so has expired. 25 The Court will first address the motions to seal. Defendants first seek leave to file 26 portions of their Motion for Summary Judgment and their Reply under seal because the 27 pleadings and certain exhibits contain sensitive information as to the minor Plaintiffs in 28 this case and Plaintiff Johnny Wheatcroft’s medical records. (Doc. 247 at 2; Doc. 268 at 1 1–2.) Because the Motion for Summary Judgment and Reply deal with a dispositive 2 motion, Defendants “must meet the high threshold showing that ‘compelling reasons’ 3 support secrecy.” Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179–80 (9th 4 Cir. 2006). The Court finds that Defendants have met this standard. See J.N. v. Or. Dep’t 5 of Educ., No. 6:19-CV-00096, 2020 WL 589534, at *2 (D. Or. Feb. 5 2020) (finding the 6 protection of a minor’s identity outweighed the presumption in favor of public access to 7 court records); A.C. v. City of Santa Clara, No. 13-CV-03276, 2015 WL 4076364, at *2 8 (N.D. Cal. July 2, 2015) (finding that the confidentiality concerns of medical records under 9 the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 outweighed the 10 presumption in favor of public access to court records). The Court will therefore grant these 11 two motions to seal (Docs. 247, 268). 12 Defendants also seek to file sealed exhibits in support of their Reply. (Doc. 269.) 13 Specifically, Defendants seek to file and seal Exhibits A–E. (Id.) These include three 14 exhibits that contain “still frames” of police body worn camera videos and two exhibits in 15 the form of deposition testimony, that rebut Plaintiffs’ response as to the minor’s alleged 16 emotional harm. (Id.) As mentioned above, Plaintiffs did not file a response in opposition 17 to this motion to seal. The Court agrees with Defendants that the still frames could be useful 18 in resolving the underlying motion for summary judgment. The Court also agrees that the 19 deposition testimony may be used to rebut arguments raised in Plaintiffs’ response to the 20 motion for summary judgment. Thus, the Court grants Defendants’ motion to file Exhibits 21 A–E under seal. 22 The Court now turns to both Defendants’ and Plaintiffs’ motions to file non- 23 electronic exhibits (Docs. 248, 262). Defendants seek leave to file the following non- 24 electronic exhibits in support of their Motion for Summary Judgment: (1) a compact disc 25 (“CD”) containing Officer Tolbert’s Body Worn Camera Video; (2) a CD containing 26 Officer Schneider’s Body Worn Camera Video; (3) a CD containing Officer Lindsey’s 27 Body Worn Camera Video; and (4) a CD containing Motel 6 Surveillance Video. (Doc. 28 248.) Plaintiffs seek leave to file the same non-electronic exhibits, except Officer Tolbert’s 1 body worn camera video. (Doc. 262.) The Court ordered the parties to file a joint 2 supplemental brief addressing these non-electronic exhibits. (Doc. 263.) The parties timely 3 filed a responsive brief. (Doc. 264.) After considering that joint supplemental brief, the 4 Court will grant their requests as modified by this Order. The parties shall file the redacted 5 videos, which are publicly available and have been released to the media, unsealed. See 6 Doe 1 v. McAleenan, No. 18-CV-02349-BLF-VKD, 2019 WL 5208124, at *1 (N.D. Cal. 7 Oct. 16, 2019). The parties shall also file the unredacted versions of the videos under seal. 8 The motions (Docs. 248, 262) are therefore granted as modified above. 9 Accordingly, 10 IT IS ORDERED granting Defendants’ Motion for Leave to File Under Partial 11 Seal Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 247). An unredacted version of 12 Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, and unredacted versions of Exhibits 8, 19, 13 20, 21, and 22 and non-electronic Exhibits 9, 12, and 13 attached to Defendants’ Statement 14 of facts in Support of their Motion for Summary Judgment shall be sealed. As ordered 15 below, redacted versions of Exhibits 9, 12, and 13 shall be filed unsealed. 16 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting Defendants’ Motion for Leave to File 17 Non-Electronic Exhibits in Support of Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 18 248) as modified above and ordered below. 19 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File Non- 20 Electronic Exhibits in Support of Plaintiffs’ Response to Defendants’ Motion for Summary 21 Judgment (Doc. 262) as modified above and ordered below. 22 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting Defendants’ Motion for Leave to File 23 Under Partial Seal Defendants’ Reply in Support of their Motion for Summary Judgment 24 (Doc. 268). 25 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting Defendants’ Motion for Leave to File 26 Exhibits in Support of Defendants’ Reply in Support of their Motion for Summary 27  The Court notes that this Order seals certain documents and non-electronic exhibits for 28 summary judgment purposes only. The Court is not inclined to seal anything for trial, should this case proceed to that stage. || Judgment Under Seal (Doc. 269). Defendants shall lodge Exhibits A—E, as referenced in || their motion (Doc. 269), to be filed under seal. 3 IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that by no later than August 27, 2021: 4 1. Defendants shall lodge unredacted versions of their Motion for Summary || Judgment (Doc. 245) and unredacted versions of Exhibits 8, 19, 20, 21, and 22 attached to 6|| Defendants’ Statement of facts in Support of their Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 7\| 246) for filing under seal by the Clerk of Court pursuant to this Order. 8 2. Defendants shall lodge an unredacted version of their Reply in Support of 9|| their Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 267) for filing under seal by the Clerk of Court 10 || pursuant to this Order. 11 3. Defendants shall lodge unredacted versions of Exhibits A—E outlined in their 12|| Motion for Leave to File Exhibits in Support of Defendants’ Reply in Support of their 13} Motion for Summary Judgment Under Seal (Doc. 269) for filing under seal by the Clerk of Court pursuant to this Order. 15 4. Defendants shall file the four CDs referenced in their motion (Doc. 248) in || accordance with the policies and procedures of the Clerk of the Court. Defendants shall 17 || file the redacted videos, which are publicly available and have been released to the media, 18 |} unsealed. Defendants shall also file the unredacted versions of the videos under seal. 19 5. Plaintiffs shall file the three CDs referenced in their motion (Doc. 262) in 20 || accordance with the policies and procedures of the Clerk of the Court. Plaintiffs shall file the redacted videos, which are publicly available and have been released to the media, || unsealed. Plaintiffs shall also file the unredacted versions of the videos under seal. 23 Dated this 16th day of August, 2021. 24 Michal T. Shurde 76 Michael T. Liburdi 27 United States District Judge 28

-4-