Yates v. Sonoma County

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 ZACHARY YATES, Case No. 23-cv-01812-HSG

8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO SEAL 9 v. Re: Dkt. No. 49 10 SONOMA COUNTY, et al., 11 Defendants.

12 13 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s administrative motion to seal. Dkt. No. 49. For the 14 reasons detailed below, the Court GRANTS the motion. 15 I. LEGAL STANDARD 16 Courts generally apply a “compelling reasons” standard when considering motions to seal 17 documents. Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Kamakana 18 v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006)). “This standard derives from the 19 common law right ‘to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records 20 and documents.’” Id. (quoting Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178). “[A] strong presumption in favor of 21 access is the starting point.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178 (quotations omitted). To overcome this 22 strong presumption, the party seeking to seal a judicial record attached to a dispositive motion 23 must “articulate compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the 24 general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure, such as the public interest in 25 understanding the judicial process” and “significant public events.” Id. at 1178–79 (quotations 26 omitted). “In general, ‘compelling reasons’ sufficient to outweigh the public’s interest in 27 disclosure and justify sealing court records exist when such ‘court files might have become a 1 scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets.” Id. at 1179 (quoting Nixon v. 2 Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978)). “The mere fact that the production of records 3 may lead to a litigant’s embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will not, 4 without more, compel the court to seal its records.” Id. 5 The Court must “balance[] the competing interests of the public and the party who seeks to 6 keep certain judicial records secret. After considering these interests, if the court decides to seal 7 certain judicial records, it must base its decision on a compelling reason and articulate the factual 8 basis for its ruling, without relying on hypothesis or conjecture.” Id. Civil Local Rule 79-5 9 supplements the compelling reasons standard set forth in Kamakana: the party seeking to file a 10 document or portions of it under seal “must explore all reasonable alternatives to filing documents 11 under seal, minimize the number of documents filed under seal, and avoid wherever possible 12 sealing entire documents . . . .” Civil L.R. 79-5(a). The party must further explain the interests 13 that warrant sealing, the injury that will result if sealing is declined, and why a less restrictive 14 alternative to sealing is not sufficient. See Civil L.R. 79-5(c). 15 Records attached to nondispositive motions must meet the lower “good cause” standard of 16 Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as such records “are often unrelated, or only 17 tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action.” See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179–80 18 (quotations omitted). This requires a “particularized showing” that “specific prejudice or harm 19 will result” if the information is disclosed. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 20 307 F.3d 1206, 1210–11 (9th Cir. 2002); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). “Broad allegations of 21 harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples of articulated reasoning” will not suffice. Beckman 22 Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992) (quotation omitted). 23 II. DISCUSSION 24 Plaintiff seeks to seal a declaration from counsel in support of the administrative motion to 25 continue the case management conference. Dkt. No. 49. Because the declaration is not associated 26 with any dispositive motion, the Court applies the lower good cause standard. The declaration 27 contains sensitive information related to Plaintiff’s counsel and his availability. This information 1 interest in disclosure of this information is minimal. Because the document divulges sensitive 2 information unrelated to the public’s understanding of the judicial proceedings in this action, the 3 Court finds that there is good cause to file the document under seal. 4 || Ii. CONCLUSION 5 The Court GRANTS the administrative motion to file under seal. Dkt. No. 49. Pursuant 6 to Civil Local Rule 79-5(g)(1), documents filed under seal as to which the administrative motion 7 || is granted will remain under seal. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 Dated: 3/25/2025 10 Alpert 5 sbl|). HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. ° 11 United States District Judge a 12

13 14

15 16

= 17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28