Opinion

McDaniel v. Diaz

Court
District Court, E.D. California
Filed
Dec 30, 2020
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 17.6%

The opinion

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 DAVID MCDANIEL, Case No. 1:20-cv-00856-NONE-SAB

12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S

REQUEST TO PLACE UNDER SEAL

13 v. EXHIBIT TO MOTION TO DISMISS

14 RALPH DIAZ, et al., (ECF No. 46)

15 Defendants. SEVEN DAY DEADLINE

16

17 David McDaniel (“Plaintiff”) filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on

18 June 22, 2020. On December 14, 2020, Defendants Tania Brown, Rhona Delacruz, Joseph

19 Guerrero, Nichelle Harrington, Elijah Pruitt, and Brandy Smith filed a motion to dismiss and

20 request for judicial notice. (ECF Nos. 40, 41.) On December 30, 2020, Defendants filed a

21 request to strike or seal an exhibit that was attached to the motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 46.)

22 Defendants assert that a check was attached to the motion to dismiss that inadvertently

23 contained private account information for Plaintiff’s counsel’s checking account. Attached to

24 the motion is a copy of the check with the account information redacted.

25 Courts have long recognized a “general right to inspect and copy public records and

26 documents, including judicial records and documents.” Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu,

27 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589,

597 & n. 7 (1978)). Nevertheless, this access to judicial records is not absolute. Kamakana, 447

1 F.3d at 1172. The court has recognized a category of documents that is not subject to the right of

2 public access because the documents have “traditionally been kept secret for important policy

3 reasons.” Times Mirror Co. v. United States, 873 F.2d 1210, 1219 (9th Cir. 1989). Where

4 documents such as those presented here are accompanying a motion for resolution of disputes on

5 the merits that “is at the heart of the interest in ensuring the ‘public’s understanding of the

6 judicial process and of significant public events[,] . . . “ ‘compelling reasons’ must be shown to

7 seal judicial records attached to a dispositive motion.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179.

8 The party seeking to have the document sealed must present “articulable facts”

9 identifying the interests that favor secrecy and show that these specific interests overcome the

10 presumption of access because they outweigh the public’s interest in understanding the judicial

11 process. Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1180. The Court starts from the strong presumption in favor of

12 access to public records and then considers whether the party seeking to have the record sealed

13 has demonstrated a compelling reason to have the record sealed. Id. at 1178-79. This requires

14 the Court to conscientiously balance the competing interests of the public in accessing the

15 records and the party who seeks to keep the records secret. Id. at 1179. The Court is required to

16 “articulate the factual basis for its ruling, without relying on hypothesis or conjecture.” Id.

17 (citations omitted).

18 Here, Defendants seek to place under seal the account information on a check used to pay

19 the fees associated with filing the plaintiff’s government claim form. The Court finds that

20 compelling reasons exist to place the document under seal. The information contained on the

21 exhibit is the type of information that is could be misused and cause significant harm to counsel.

22 This weighs heavily in favor of placing the record under seal. Further, the exhibit itself has little

23 relevancy to the issues to be decided in this action. While the Court may be considering whether

24 a claim form was timely filed, the manner of payment of the fee is not at issue. Therefore,

25 sealing the document will not interfere with the public’s interest in understanding the judicial

26 process. The Court finds that compelling reasons exist to place the documents under seal and

27 shall grant the request.

1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

2 1. The request to seal or strike private information, filed December 30, 2020, is

3 GRANTED;

4 2. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to place Defendants’ request for judicial

5 notice (ECF No. 41) and Defendants’ request to strike or seal private information

6 (ECF No. 46) under seal;

7 3. Within seven (7) days of the date of entry of this order, Defendants shall file the

8 request for judicial notice and request to strike or seal private information in the

9 record without the sealed exhibit (ECF No. 41 at p. 8 and ECF No. 46 at p. 8).

10

i IT IS SO ORDERED. FA. ee

12 | Dated: _ December 30, 2020

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.