# McDaniel v. Diaz > District Court, E.D. California · December 30, 2020 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10024346 ## Case - **Court:** District Court, E.D. California - **Decided:** December 30, 2020 - **Opinion:** 100trialcourt - **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases. - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10024346 ## Opinion text 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 --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10024346. Public record. Not legal advice.