Willis v. City of Bakersfield

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BYRON WILLIS, Case No. 1:21-cv-01077-CDB

12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING WITHOUT 13 v. PREJUDICE DEFENDANTS’ REQUEST TO SEAL 14 CITY OF BAKERSFIELD, ET AL., (Doc. 54-6) 15 Defendants. 16 17 Pending before the Court is Defendants’ Request to Seal Exhibit 1 to evidence filed in 18 support of Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 54-6). The application for sealing 19 does not comply with Local Rule 141 and the undersigned presently does not have sufficient 20 information to consider the request. Accordingly, the application shall be denied without 21 prejudice. 22 Consistent with Local Rule 141, a party seeking Court order to seal documents shall 23 submit a publicly filed “Notice” that sets forth, among other things, “the manner in which the 24 [separate] ‘Request to Seal Documents,’ proposed order, and the documents themselves were 25 submitted to the Court, and whether the Request, proposed order, and documents were served on 26 all other parties.” See Local Rule 141(b). The Court construes Defendants’ publicly filed 27 “Request to Seal” (Doc. 54-6) to be the equivalent of the required “Notice” under Local Rule 28 141(b). Here, Defendants’ Notice does not include the information required under Local Rule 1 141(b) described above. 2 Additionally, Local Rule 141 requires the party to submit to the assigned magistrate judge 3 via e-mail or postal mail a separate “Request to Seal Documents” and the documents sought to be 4 sealed. Here, counsel for Defendants submitted via email to chambers of the undersigned only a 5 proposed order – not a “Request to Seal Documents” or the documents sought to be sealed. 6 The “Request to Seal Documents” is required to set forth the statutory or other authority 7 for sealing, the requested duration, the identity, by name or category, of persons to be permitted 8 access to the documents, and all other relevant information. If the Request, proposed order, and/or 9 documents covered by the Request were submitted without service upon one or more other 10 parties, the Request also is required to set forth the basis for excluding any party from service. 11 Further, Local Rule 141(b) provides that, except in matters in which it is clearly appropriate not 12 to serve the “Request to Seal Documents” and/or documents upon the parties, “all Requests, 13 proposed orders, and submitted documents shall be served on all parties on or before the day they 14 are submitted to the Court.” 15 The Court understands from Defendants’ publicly filed Notice that sealing is requested in 16 the interests of protecting the identity of a nonparty witness and victim, to preserve the witness’s 17 privacy rights, and deter the possibility of “intimidation and potential physical and mental harm.” 18 (Doc. 54-6). While all of these interests are important, the Court cannot conduct the required 19 analysis to endorse sealing without the benefit of a complete application that provides the Court 20 with all required information. That is because, under the First Amendment, the press and the 21 public have a presumed right of access to court proceedings and documents. See generally Press- 22 Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 464 U.S. 501, 510 (1985); Center for Auto Safety v. Chrysler 23 Group, LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2016); see Olympic Ref. Co. v. Carter, 332 F.2d 260, 24 264 (9th Cir. 1964) (“In the federal judicial system trial and pretrial proceedings are ordinarily to 25 be conducted in public.”). As a general rule, the public is permitted ‘access to litigation 26 documents and information produced during discovery.’” In re Roman Catholic Archbishop of 27 Portland in Oregon, 661 F.3d 417, 424 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Phillips v. Gen. Motors Corp., 28 307 F. 3d 1206, 1210 (9th Cir. 2002) and citing San Jose Mercury News, Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Court, 1 187 F.3d 1096, 1103 (9th Cir. 1999)). This presumed right can be overcome if (1) closure serves 2 || acompelling interest; (2) there is a substantial probability that, in the absence of closure, this 3 | compelling interest would be harmed; and (3) there are no alternatives to closure that would 4 | adequately protect the compelling interest. Oregonian Publishing Co. v. U.S. District Court for 5 | the District of Oregon, 920 F.2d 1462, 1466 (9th Cir. 1990) (citing Press Enterprise, 464 U.S. at 6 | 510). 7 Importantly, Defendants have not articulated in a Request whether, under Oregonian 8 | Publishing Co., any alternatives to complete closure would sufficiently protect the asserted 9 | compelling interests, and without the documents sought to be sealed, the Court cannot 10 | independently assess whether, for instance, redactions could adequately mitigate the potential 11 | harms. 12 Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ application to seal (Doc. 54-6) is 13 | DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Defendants may submit an amended application to seal that 14 | complies with Local Rule 141 and contains supplemental information responsive to the analysis 15 | set forth above and/or propose the public filing of a redacted version of Exhibit 1, at which point 16 | the Court is prepared to reconsider Defendants’ request. 17 | IT IS SO ORDERED. 'S | Dated: _ August 10, 2023 | Wr bo 19 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28