Pryor v. City of Clearlake et al
Filing
85
ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFFS 69 ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/9/2012)
<![CDATA[
1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
3
4
SEAN PRYOR,
5
6
7
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
No. C 11-0954 CW
Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF CLEARLAKE, a governmental
entity; CARL MILLER,
individually, and in his capacity
as a police officer for the City
of Clearlake and acting sergeant;
ALAN WADE McCLAIN, individually
and in his capacity as Chief of
Police for the City of Clearlake;
CRAIG CLAUSEN, individually and
in his capacity as Police
Lieutenant for the City of
Clearlake; MICHAEL RAY,
individually, and in his capacity
as a police officer for the City
of Clearlake; and DOES 1-50,
individually, and in their
capacity as police officers for
the City of Clearlake,
ORDER GRANTING IN
PART AND DENYING
IN PART
PLAINTIFF’S
ADMINISTRATIVE
MOTION TO SEAL,
Docket No. 69.
Defendants.
________________________________/
18
19
Plaintiff moves to file under seal, pursuant to this Court’s
20
Local Rules 79-5(c) and (d), portions of his brief in opposition
21
to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment and portions of Exhibit
22
Four to his opposition.
23
P. Allen submitted a declaration in support of sealing certain
24
pages of Exhibit Four.
25
part the motion to seal portions of Exhibit Four.
26
the Court approves Plaintiff’s proposed redactions to his
27
opposition brief to the extent consistent with this Court’s order
28
regarding Exhibit Four.
Docket No. 69.
Defendants’ counsel Kevin
The Court grants in part and denies in
In addition,
1
The Ninth Circuit has held that where a party seeks to file
2
under seal documents as part of a dispositive motion, the moving
3
party must demonstrate compelling reasons to seal the documents.
4
Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178-79 (9th
5
Cir. 2006).
6
a vehicle for improper purposes’ such as the use of records to
7
gratify private spite, promote public scandal, circulate libelous
8
statements, or release trade secrets,” there are “compelling
9
reasons” sufficient to outweigh the public’s interest in
In general, when “‘court files might have become the
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
disclosure.
11
must articulate compelling reasons supported by specific factual
12
findings that outweigh the general history of access and the
13
public policies favoring disclosure, such as the public interest
14
in understanding the judicial process.”
15
citations and alterations omitted).
16
conscientiously balance the competing interests of the public and
17
the party who seeks to keep certain judicial records secret.”
18
at 1179 (internal citations and alterations omitted).
19
fact that the production of records may lead to a litigant’s
20
embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further litigation
21
will not, without more, compel the court to seal its records.”
22
Id. (citing Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d
23
1122, 1136 (9th Cir. 2003)).
24
Id. at 1179.
“The party requesting the sealing order
Id. at 1178-79 (internal
“In turn, the court must
Id.
“The mere
The Ninth Circuit has held that there are compelling reasons
25
to seal the home addresses and social security numbers of law
26
enforcement officers.
27
magistrate judge’s decision to seal such information to avoid
Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1182 (affirming
28
2
1
“expos[ing] the officers and their families to harm or identity
2
theft).
3
4
5
6
7
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2 states,
Unless the court orders otherwise, in an electronic or
paper filing with the court that contains an
individual's social-security number, taxpayeridentification number, or birth date, the name of an
individual known to be a minor, or a financial-account
number, a party or nonparty making the filing may
include only:
(1)
the last four digits of the social-security
number and taxpayer-identification number;
(2)
the year of the individual's birth;
(3)
the minor's initials; and
(4)
the last four digits of the financialaccount number.
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2.
Pursuant to the standard described above, the Court considers
the documents that Plaintiff and Defendants seek to seal.
Defendants request that the Court seal documents Bates-stamped D001336, D-001337, D-001374 and D-001375.
Documents D-001374 and
D-001375 consist of a two page “Citizen’s Personnel Complaint”
lodged against Officer Carl Miller, and include the names of the
complainant and a witness, as well as the complainant’s statement
describing the incident, date of birth and personal contact
information.
Document D-001336 consists of the second page of a
different Citizen’s Personnel Complaint lodged against Miller and
a non-defendant Clearlake Police Department sergeant.
Like
document D-001375, it contains the complainant’s name, date of
birth and personal contact information.
It appears that
Defendants intended to request that the Court seal the two page
complaint against Miller and the sergeant but, instead of
requesting that the Court seal documents D-001335 and D-001336,
3
1
they sought to seal documents D-001336 and Document D-001337, the
2
latter of which is not part of the complaint form.
3
deems Defendants’ request as one seeking to seal documents
4
D-001335 and D-001336.
The Court
5
Defendants assert that under Kamakana the documents are
6
sealable because they are libelous and serve only to promote
7
scandal.
8
“unfounded” and the other “unfounded/not substantiated,” as
9
evidenced by the document Bates-stamped D-01370.
Defendants state that one incident was deemed
Document
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
D-01370, however, was not attached to Allen’s declaration and was
11
not included in Exhibit Four.
12
argue in his opposition or elsewhere that any investigation found
13
that these complaints had merit or were substantiated to any
14
degree.
15
complaints were made.
16
his personnel information outweighs the public’s interest in
17
disclosure.
18
stamped D-001335, D-001336, D-001374 and D-001375 are sealable.
19
Nevertheless, Plaintiff did not
Thus, the documents simply indicate the fact that the
Without more, Miller’s privacy interest in
Accordingly, both two-page complaint forms, Bates-
Defendants request that the Court seal documents Bates-
20
stamped D-001337 through D-001343.
21
personal identifying information for the individual who submitted
22
the above-mentioned complaints, as well as forms related to the
23
complainant’s arrest, booking and intake.
24
relevant to resolving Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, and
25
contain personal identity and contact information, as well as
26
arrest information about a non-litigant that will likely cause him
27
embarrassment.
28
a litigant, alone, was not sufficient to justify a sealing order,
These documents contain
These documents are not
Although Kamakana stated that the embarrassment of
4
1
the arrest records pertain to a non-litigant.
2
three factors--irrelevance, personal identification information
3
and likely embarrassing information about the arrest of a non-
4
litigant--outweigh the public’s interest in disclosure.
5
Accordingly, the request to seal documents Bates-stamped D-001337
6
through D-001343 is granted.
7
Together these
Defendants request that the Court seal documents Bates-
8
stamped D-001403 through D-001411.
9
Internal Affairs investigation into a complaint lodged against
These documents pertain to an
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
Miller and a non-defendant related to a party that Miller hosted
11
at his home and include personal identifying information regarding
12
the complainant.
13
complaint concluded that it was unfounded.
14
probative of Plaintiff’s claims.
15
contain Miller’s private personnel information regarding an
16
unfounded complaint, and the complainant’s personal identification
17
and contact information, and are irrelevant to resolving
18
Defendants’ motion for summary judgment demonstrate that there is
19
a compelling interest in sealing the documents, which outweighs
20
the public’s interest in disclosure.
21
D-001403 through D-001411 are sealable.
22
The investigator assigned to review the
The documents are not
The fact that the documents
Therefore, documents
Defendants request that the Court seal documents Bates-
23
stamped D-001424 through D-1433, concerning an Internal Affairs
24
investigation regarding Miller’s failure to follow CPD policies
25
related to confidentiality.
26
incidents were not probative of Plaintiff’s claims.
27
Miller was reprimanded based on the investigation, the private
The Court determined that these
28
5
Although
1
nature of the documents and their irrelevance outweigh the
2
public's interest in their disclosure and they may be sealed.
3
Defendants request to seal personal identification and
4
contact information contained in documents Bates-stamped D-001507
5
through D-001516.
6
felony arrest of a purportedly mentally ill individual.
7
the incident the individual exchanged gunfire with Miller and
8
another officer and evaded attempts to remove him from a house.
9
Defendants concede that documents D-001507 through D-001516
These documents pertain to an October 2, 2006
During
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
include significant identifying information for individuals who
11
are not parties to this action, but were contacted in connection
12
with the felony arrest.
13
the arrestee, a non-litigant, is also likely to cause him
14
embarrassment.
15
Kamakana, the names, address, telephone numbers, dates of birth
16
and ages for the non-party individuals shall be redacted from
17
documents D-001507 through D-001516.
18
The identification information regarding
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52 and
Defendants request to seal documents Bates-stamped D-001517
19
through D-001533.
20
Miller’s Facebook wall.
21
July 6, 2012 order, Docket No. 79, Defendants’ request to seal
22
these pages is denied.
23
postings are by individuals other than Miller.
24
no indication that such individuals had an expectation of privacy
25
in such communications.
26
postings were not probative of Plaintiff’s claims, the standard
27
for sealing documents submitted in connection with a motion for
28
summary judgment is the compelling interest standard, in which
These documents consist of print-outs from
For the reasons explained in this Court’s
Defendants further argue that some
However, there is
Although the Court found that the
6
1
relevance is not a dispositive factor.
2
only purpose of submitting the postings is to serve private spite.
3
However, their submission was consistent with Plaintiff’s efforts
4
to demonstrate that Miller was a rogue officer in a department
5
that broadly condoned such behavior within its ranks.
6
postings concerning parties and drinking may be embarrassing, but
7
apparently not enough to persuade Miller not to post them or to
8
remove them.
9
public embarrassment of a litigant alone is not sufficient to
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
Defendants argue that the
The
Under Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179, the prevention of
justify a sealing order.
11
Defendants ask to seal documents Bates-stamped D-001607
12
through D-001616, which consist of a cover sheet and report from a
13
background investigation of Miller in connection with his
14
application for employment with the CPD.
15
Court found that Miller had a privacy interest in information
16
contained his personnel file, including that which refers to
17
incidents that occurred decades ago and contains personal
18
identification and contact information.
19
lack of relevance of the sensitive information is not dispositive
20
as to whether a sealing order is warranted, but underscores the
21
privacy interest in sealing such information.
22
Miller’s privacy interest against the public’s interest, the Court
23
approved redactions from Defendants’ reply brief in support of the
24
motion for summary judgment.
25
On July 6, 2012, the
As noted earlier, the
After balancing
Documents D-001607 through D-001616 underlie the redactions
26
approved for Defendants’ reply brief.
27
July 6, 2012 order, Defendants’ request to seal documents D-001607
28
through D-01616 is granted.
Consistent with the Court’s
In addition, the Court grants
7
1
Defendants’ request to seal documents Bates-stamped D-001631
2
through D-001633, D-001636, D-001637, D-001642 through D-001644,
3
D-001669 through D-001677, D-001693 through D-001695,1 D-001702
4
through D-001705 and D-001708 through D-001724 because they
5
provide Miller’s personal history submitted in connection with his
6
employment application, including the names and contact
7
information for various non-party relatives and former employers,
8
and serve as the basis for portions of the report concerning his
9
background investigation.
The lack of probative value of these
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
documents and their private nature outweigh the public’s interest
11
in disclosure.
12
D-001606, but Miller’s driver’s license number shall be redacted.
13
Defendants request that the Court seal documents Bates-
14
stamped D-001759 through D-001763 because they concern an incident
15
that led the CPD to release Miller from his position as a training
16
officer.
17
that did not bear any relation to Plaintiff’s claims and the CPD
18
reprimanded Miller, the documents are not relevant to establish
19
any of Plaintiff’s claims that were the subject of Defendants’
20
summary judgment motion.
21
irrelevance of the documents sufficiently outweigh the public’s
22
interest in disclosure so as to satisfy the compelling interest
23
standard.
24
through D-001763 is granted.
Defendants do not request to seal document
Because, in this instance, Miller violated CPD policies
Miller’s privacy interest and the
Thus, Defendants' request to seal documents D-001759
25
26
1
27
28
Defendants do not request that the Court seal document
D-001695, but the omission appears to be an oversight because the
page is a continuation of Miller’s employment application.
8
1
2
Defendants' request to redact the address information for a
non-party witness included in document D-001776 is granted.
3
Defendants ask that the Court seal the names of officers
4
contained in document D-001786 pursuant to Dowell v. Griffin, 275
5
F.R.D. 613 (S.D. Cal. 2011).
6
CPD officers who watched a P.O.S.T. training video concerning
7
ethics.
8
alleging an unconstitutional search of a plaintiff’s person and
9
prison cell.
The document consists of a log of
Dowell addresses discovery disputes in a § 1983 case
Apart from noting the privacy interests and
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
privilege associated with official information, which Defendants
11
apparently did not assert in disclosing document D-001786, Dowell
12
is not relevant to the present motion to seal.
13
does not warrant sealing under the compelling interest test.
14
Plaintiff’s lawsuit included a Monell claim against the City for
15
failure to provide adequate training to its officers.
16
highly probative of CPD practices at issue in this case,
17
Defendants have not asserted any privacy interest sufficient to
18
outweigh the presumption in favor of disclosure.
19
request to seal document D-001786 is denied.
20
Document D-001776
While not
Defendants’
Defendants ask to seal documents Bates-stamped D-002055 and
21
D-002057, which pertain to Defendant Michael Ray’s appointment as
22
a CPD officer.
23
identification information and birthdate are private, as well as
24
the information concerning his pay, including his pay plan and
25
step.
26
D-002057 with the redactions necessary to protect such
27
information.
Under Kamakana, Ray’s personal address,
Accordingly, Plaintiff shall file documents D-002055 and
28
9
1
Defendants ask to seal documents Bates-stamped D-002069,
2
D-002070, D-002074 through D-002088,2 D-002090 through D-002101,
3
D-002103 and D-002105 through D-002108.
4
to Ray’s application for employment with the CPD and include forms
5
containing personal identification and contact information for
6
Ray, his references and relatives, as well as background
7
information about his prior experience, education, military
8
service and employment.
9
information and its lack of probative value with respect to
These documents pertain
Given the highly personal nature of this
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
Plaintiff’s claims, the public has relatively little interest in
11
access to these documents as compared to Ray’s privacy interests.
12
Accordingly, Defendants have demonstrated a compelling interest in
13
sealing these documents and their request is granted.
14
Defendants ask to seal documents Bates-stamped D-002166
15
through D-002168.
16
polygraph examination and interview for the position of CPD
17
officer trainee.
18
connecting Ray’s pre-employment conduct and the incident at issue
19
in this lawsuit.
20
and their highly personal, sensitive nature, Ray’s privacy
21
interest in preventing their disclosure significantly outweighs
22
the public’s interest in the information.
23
seal documents D-002166 through D-002168 is granted.
These documents relate to Ray’s pre-employment
Plaintiff failed to point to any evidence
Given the lack of relevance of these documents
Defendants’ request to
24
25
26
27
28
2
Defendants requested that the Court seal documents
D-002089, but the document was not contained in Exhibit Four.
10
1
2
CONCLUSION
Plaintiff shall file a redacted version of Exhibit Four in
support of his opposition brief, excluding the following
4
documents:
5
through D-001343, D-001403 through D-001411, D-001424 through
6
D-001433, D-001607 through D-01616, D-001631 through D-001633,
7
D-001636, D-001637, D-001642 through D-001644, D-001669 through
8
D-001677, D-001693 through D-001695, D-001702 through D-001705,
9
D-001708 through D-001724, D-001759 through D-001763, D-002069,
10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
3
D-002070, D-002074 through D-002088, D-002090 through D-002101,
11
D-002103, D-002105 through D-002108, and D-002166 through
12
D-002168.
13
dates of birth and ages for non-party individuals in documents
14
D-001507 through D-001516, Miller’s driver’s license number in
15
document D-001606, the address information contained in document
16
D-001776, and Ray’s personal identification, address and financial
17
information contained in documents D-002055 and D-002057 shall be
18
redacted.
19
D-001335, D-001336, D-001374, D-001375, D-001337
In addition, the names, address, telephone numbers,
Plaintiff shall file the redacted exhibit and opposition
20
brief within five days.
21
and opposition under seal.
22
documents under seal are provided on this Court’s website at
23
https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cand/faq/under_seal.htm.
24
He shall also file the unredacted exhibit
Instructions for electronically filing
IT IS SO ORDERED.
25
26
27
Dated: 8/9/2012
CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge
28
11
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
