The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 CHAKONG THAO, et al., No. 2:21-cv-0731 KJM AC P
12 Plaintiff,
13 v. ORDER
14 JEFF LYNCH, et al.,
15 Defendants.
16
17 Defendant has filed a motion to quash a subpoena and a request to file documents under
18 seal in support of that motion. ECF Nos. 40, 42. Plaintiffs have also filed two requests to file
19 documents under seal: one in support of their opposition to defendant’s motion to quash (ECF
20 No. 48) and one in support of the parties’ joint statement regarding a discovery dispute. (ECF
21 No. 48).
22 I. Defendant’s Request to Seal
23 With respect to defendant’s request to seal, the court found that the request failed to
24 provide authority for sealing the documents and provided defendant with an opportunity to
25 supplement the request. ECF No. 43. Defendant has now filed a supplement to the request to
26 seal (ECF No. 46), and plaintiffs have not opposed the request.
27 “Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records
28 and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City and County of
1 Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435
2 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). The Ninth Circuit recognizes “a strong presumption in favor of
3 access to court records.” Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir.
4 2003) (citations omitted). “A ‘good cause’ showing under Rule 26(c) will suffice to keep sealed
5 records attached to non-dispositive motions.” Id. at 1180 (citing Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1135-36).
6 The party asserting good cause must show “specific prejudice or harm will result for each
7 particular document it seeks to protect” if the documents are not filed under seal. Foltz, 331 F.3d
8 at 1130 (citations omitted).
9 In her supplemental request to seal, defendant narrows the scope of the documents she
10 seeks to file under seal to an investigative report and cellmate history. ECF No. 46. She asserts
11 that these documents should be sealed because they contain sensitive and confidential information
12 that would put the safety and security of the prison, prison staff, and inmates at risk if made
13 public. Id. The supplement is supported by a declaration from a litigation coordinator at
14 California State Prison-Sacramento who avers they are familiar with and have reviewed the
15 documents and that the documents contain information deemed confidential. ECF No. 46-1. The
16 declaration further outlines the particular harm public disclosure of each document would entail.
17 Id. Defendant’s supplement to the request to seal sufficiently demonstrates that good cause exists
18 to seal the investigative report submitted as AGO 10-29 (alternatively identified by their
19 production numbers as CDCR 1-20) and the cellmate history documents submitted as AGO 31-34
20 (alternatively identified by their production numbers as CDCR 170-173) and the request will be
21 granted.1
22 II. Plaintiff’s Requests to Seal
23 Plaintiffs have also submitted two requests to seal. ECF Nos. 48, 49. With respect to the
24 first request to seal, because plaintiffs are not the ones who designated the documents
25 confidential, the designating party shall be provided an opportunity to provide grounds for sealing
26 ////
27
1 The court notes that these documents were also submitted at AGO 46-65, 67-70, 85-104, 107-
28 110.
1 the documents identified in plaintiffs’ request.2
2 With respect to the second request, plaintiffs request that a parole hearing transcript for
3 Jose Negrete3 be filed under seal. ECF No. 49. However, although plaintiffs state the request is
4 being made in accordance with the protective order, they also state that the document has not
5 been designated confidential or highly confidential by any party and that they are requesting the
6 transcript be sealed “out of an abundance of caution.” Id. at 2. The request to seal—submitted to
7 the court outside the court’s electronic filing system in accordance with Local Rule 141—
8 elaborates that the transcript was received from one of Negrete’s victims, who obtained the
9 transcript from the California Board of Prison Terms “without any kind of restriction or notice of
10 confidentiality,” but that the transcript may require sealing because parole hearings are not open
11 to the public and there are references to Negrete’s “various psychiatric reports.” Request at 2-3.
12 However, despite their apparent belief that the transcript requires sealing, plaintiffs proceeded to
13 quote portions of the transcript in the parties’ joint discovery statement. ECF No. 50 at 22-23.
14 If plaintiffs believe that documents require sealing, it is their burden to provide the
15 necessary authority to the court to justify sealing the documents, and it is inappropriate for them
16 to attempt to shift this burden to the court. It is further inappropriate and inconsistent for
17 plaintiffs to assert that a transcript must be sealed and then publicly file quoted portions of that
18 transcript. Moreover, had counsel done his due diligence and conducted basic research, he would
19 have easily discovered that California Penal Code § 3042(b) provides that transcripts for parole
20 review hearings for inmates serving life sentences are to be “made available to the public no later
21 than 30 days from the date of the hearing.” The hearing transcript states that Negrete is serving a
22
2 It appears that non-party California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) may
23 be the designating party. Although the CDCR is not a party to this case, counsel for defendant
has stated that he also represents the CDCR with regard to the subpoenas and deposition notices
24 at issue in the motion to quash and represented the CDCR with regard to a prior subpoena for
documents, which appears to have been the source of the documents at issue. ECF No. 40-1 at 1-
25
2. It therefore appears that service of this order on defendant’s counsel through the CM/ECF
26 system is sufficient to constitute service on the CDCR and notice of the opportunity to respond.
If defendant is not the designating party, and defendant’s counsel does not also represent the
27 designating party, counsel should promptly notify the court to ensure the designating party is
properly notified of their opportunity to justify sealing the documents submitted by plaintiff.
28 3 Negrete is the inmate accused of murdering plaintiffs’ family member.
1 || term of fifteen years to life. Transcript at 3. The transcript is therefore a publicly available
2 || document and the request to seal will be denied. Despite the public nature of the transcript,
3 || plaintiffs should consider whether it is in fact necessary for them to file the entire transcript with
4 || the court, when they have already included the potions of the transcript they appear to believe are
5 || relevant in their joint statement.
6 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
7 1. Defendant’s request to seal documents (ECF No. 42), as narrowed by their supplement
8 || to the request (ECF No. 46), is GRANTED. Within seven days of the filing of this order,
9 || defendant shall submit the investigative report marked as AGO 10-29 and the cellmate history
10 || documents marked as AGO 31-34 to the Clerk of the Court for filing under seal in the manner set
11 | forth in Local Rule 141(e)(2).
12 2. Within seven days of the filing of this order, defendant may publicly file any of the
13 || remaining documents originally submitted for sealing if she still seeks to have them considered in
14 || support of her motion to quash.
15 3. Within ten days of the filing of this order, the party designating the documents
16 || submitted as part of plaintiffs’ first request to seal (ECF No. 48) as confidential may file a
17 || response to the request providing further justification for sealing.
18 4. Plaintiffs’ second request to seal (ECF No. 49) is DENIED.
19 | DATED: February 9, 2023 ~
20 Athten—Clonee
ALLISON CLAIRE
21 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
22
23
24
25
26
27
28