Doe v. San Diego, City of et al, No. 3:2012cv00689 - Document 353 (S.D. Cal. 2014)
Court Description: ORDER granting in part and denying in part the Media's 327 Motion to Intervene and 327 Motion to Unseal Court Records. Court orders the unsealing of the majority of the documents filed in conjunction with the summary judgment motions previ ously decided by this Court. The parties shall perform any necessary redactions as referenced in this Order and file unsealed versions of all pertinent documents within 5 days of this Order. Clerk is instructed to unseal all documents as referenced in this Order which do not require redacting and which may be unsealed in their entirety. Signed by Judge Michael M. Anello on 5/14/2014. (jah). Modified on 5/14/2014 - Edited to correct filing deadline. Regenerated NEF (jah).
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Doe v. San Diego, City of et al Doc. 353 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 JANE DOE, CASE NO. 12-cv-689-MMA-DHB 11 13 Plaintiff, vs. 12 ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION TO INTERVENE AND UNSEAL COURT RECORDS CITY OF SAN DIEGO, et al., 14 [Doc. No. 327] Defendants. 15 16 On March 12, 2014, six local media entities1 (the “Media”) filed a Motion to 17 Intervene and Unseal Records. Doc. No. 327. Defendant City of San Diego opposes 18 the Media’s request to unseal records. Upon careful consideration of the parties’ 19 arguments, the Court GRANTS in large part the Media’s motion. BACKGROUND 20 21 This action arises out of a March 8, 2011 incident in which Plaintiff Jane Doe 22 (“Plaintiff” or “Doe”) was sexually assaulted and battered by San Diego Police 23 Department Officer Anthony Arevalos. As a result of Arevalos’ acts, Plaintiff filed 24 this civil rights lawsuit against Arevalos, the City of San Diego, and nine of 2 25 Arevalos’ past supervisors in the police force. 26 27 28 1 NBC 7. 2 U-T San Diego, Voice of San Diego, KFMB News 8, Fox 5, KGTV 10, and The supervisors have since been dismissed from this action. See Doc. No. 330. -1- 12cv689 Dockets.Justia.com 1 On March 8, 2013, Magistrate Judge David H. Bartick issued a protective order, 2 permitting the parties, upon receiving leave of court, to file “Confidential” 3 documents under seal. According to the protective order, “Confidential” refers to: 4 5 6 7 8 9 (i) any information contained within a peace officer personnel file; (ii) the address, phone and license number of any peace officer; (iii) the name, address, phone, license number, photo or likeness of any sexual assault victim; (iv) the private financial information, including the social security number of any party or witness; (v) the private medical information, including psychiatric or psychological information, of any party or witness; (vi) any other information deemed privileged or confidential pursuant to any State or Federal statute or regulation, or any court order; and (vii) anything that the parties mutually agree should be classified as such. 10 Protective Order, Doc. No. 83. Pursuant to the protective order, a number of 11 pleadings and documents in this matter have been filed under seal. 12 As a result, the Media now seeks to intervene for the limited purpose of 13 unsealing all documents filed in conjunction with any dispositive motion adjudicated 14 by the Court. The Media contends that the case involves substantial public interests 15 and that compelling reasons do not exist to keep case records under seal. The City 16 of San Diego, joined by Defendant Arevalos, opposes the Media’s request, arguing 17 that any denial of access to confidential information is based upon a compelling 18 reason. Plaintiff Jane Doe does not oppose the Media’s motion, so long as her 19 identity and identifying information is redacted prior to access by or release to the 20 public. 21 DISCUSSION 22 A. 23 The Ninth Circuit has recognized that non-parties seeking access to judicial Motion to Intervene 24 records in a civil case may do so by seeking permissive intervention pursuant to 25 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(b)(2). San Jose Mercury News, Inc. v. U.S. Dist. 26 Ct., 187 F.3d 1096, 1100 (9th Cir. 1999). “A motion for permissive intervention 27 pursuant to Rule 24(b) is directed to the sound discretion of the district court.” Id. 28 Defendants do not oppose intervention. -2- 12cv689 1 Ordinarily, an applicant seeking permissive intervention under Rule 24(b)(2) 2 must establish: “(1) independent grounds for jurisdiction; (2) the motion is timely; 3 and (3) the applicant’s claim or defense, and the main action, have a question of law 4 or a question of fact in common.” Id. (internal quotation omitted). In cases 5 involving a challenge of a protective order, however, an applicant need not have an 6 independent ground for jurisdiction or share a question of law or fact in common 7 with the main action. See Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 8 473–74 (holding that independent jurisdictional basis and strong nexus of fact or law 9 are not required where intervenor merely seeks to challenge a protective order); 10 Globe Newspapers Co. v. Superior Court, 457 U.S. 596, 609 n.25 (1982) 11 (“[R]epresentatives of the press and general public must be given an opportunity to 12 be heard on the question of their exclusion.”). Moreover, the Court finds that the 13 Media’s intervention request is timely and will not prejudice the proceedings. 14 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the Media’s motion to intervene. 15 B. 16 Courts have historically recognized a “general right to inspect and copy public Motion to Unseal 17 records and documents, including judicial records and documents.” Nixon v. Warner 18 Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597, n.7 (1978). “Unless a particular court record is 19 one ‘traditionally kept secret,’ a ‘strong presumption in favor of access’ is the 20 starting point.” Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th 21 Cir. 2006) (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 22 (9th Cir. 2003)). In keeping with the strong public policy favoring access to court 23 records, most judicial records may be sealed only if the court finds “compelling 24 reasons.” Oliner v. Kontrabecki, -- F. 3d. --, 2014 WL 1088254, at *1 (9th Cir. 25 2014) (citing Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 677–78 (9th Cir. 2010) 26 (amended opinion)). However, a less exacting “good cause” standard “applies to 27 private materials unearthed during discovery,” and to “previously sealed discovery 28 attached to a nondispositive motion.” Id. (citing Pintos, 605 F.3d at 678). -3- 12cv689 1 Here, the Media seeks to unseal “court records that have been filed in support 2 of dispositive motions adjudicated by this Court, including motions for summary 3 judgment.” Reply Brief at 1. The Court has adjudicated three dispositive motions 4 thus far in this action: (1) the Supervisor Defendants’ motion for summary judgment 5 (Doc. No. 191); (2) the City of San Diego’s motion for partial summary judgment 6 (Doc. No. 201); and (3) Plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment (Doc. No. 7 202).3 Accordingly, the Court will consider whether Defendants have articulated 8 “compelling reasons” for sealing documents filed in relation to these motions. The 9 Court, however, will first briefly outline the two major arguments posed by the City 10 in opposition to unsealing the documents. 11 Information From Peace Officer Personnel Files 12 The City’s primary objection to the unsealing of the record invokes California 13 Penal Code section 832.7, which provides: 14 Peace officer or custodial officer personnel records4 and records 15 3 The Court’s orders on these motions appear on the docket at document numbers 16 328, 330, 334. 17 4 Section 832.8 defines “personnel records” as: 18 19 20 any file maintained under that individual’s name by his or her employing agency and containing records relating to any of the following: 21 (a) Personal data, including marital status, family members, educational and employment history, home addresses, or similar information. 22 (b) Medical history. 23 (c) Election of employee benefits. 24 (d) Employee advancement, appraisal, or discipline. 25 27 (e) Complaints, or investigations of complaints, concerning an event or transaction in which he or she participated, or which he or she perceived, and pertaining to the manner in which he or she performed his or her duties. 28 (f) Any other information the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. 26 -4- 12cv689 1 2 3 maintained by any state or local agency pursuant to Section 832.5, or information obtained from these records, are confidential and shall not be disclosed in any criminal or civil proceeding except by discovery pursuant to Sections 1043 and 1046 of the Evidence Code. 4 Cal. Penal Code § 832.7. 5 However, section 832.7 does not serve as an automatic shield from disclosure 6 in federal court. See Garrett v. City and County of San Francisco, 818 F.2d 1515, 7 1519 n.6 (1987) (“This court has held that personnel files are discoverable in federal 8 question cases . . . despite claims of privilege”). Rather, the City must still 9 demonstrate compelling reasons to seal the documents. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 10 1178 (rejecting claim that documents relating to “law enforcement” and “official 11 information privileges” are categorically exempt from the compelling interest test). 12 In general, “compelling reasons . . . exist when such court files might have become a 13 vehicle for improper purposes, such as the use of records to gratify private spite, 14 promote public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets. Id. at 15 1179 (internal quotations and citation omitted). 16 17 Official Information Privilege The City’s secondary argument against unsealing documents relates to the 18 official information privilege. This privilege stems from federal common law, 19 Sanchez v. City of Santa Ana, 936 F.2d 1027, 1033 (9th Cir. 1990), and is neither 20 automatic nor absolute. Instead, “[t]o determine whether the information sought is 21 privileged, courts must weigh the potential benefits of disclosure against the 22 potential disadvantages.” Id. at 1033–34. The balancing test “is moderately 23 pre-weighted in favor of disclosure.” Kelly v. San Jose, 114 F.R.D. 653, 661 (N.D. 24 Cal. 1987). 25 1. 26 A number of documents were filed under seal pursuant to the Court’s order Documents Filed Under Seal Pursuant to Doc. No. 209 27 contained in document number 209. The Court will examine each in turn to 28 determine whether compelling reasons exist to keep the documents under seal. -5- 12cv689 1 2 The City’s Documents Filed Under Seal Exhibit 15 contains deposition excerpts from the deposition of “MP.” The 3 City concedes that this document may be unsealed provided that MP’s name is 4 redacted. Accordingly, the Court orders that Exhibit 15 be unsealed, excepting 5 MP’s true name. 6 Exhibit 30 is an SDPD Complaint Control form relating to the Jane Roe 7 incident. The Court notes that the identifying information in this exhibit is already 8 redacted. Moreover, the information contained within this document has already 9 been publicly disclosed. For these reasons, the Court concludes that Exhibit 30 10 should be unsealed. 11 Exhibit 39 contains excerpts from Defendant Anthony Arevalos’ deposition. 12 This document was originally placed under seal due to concerns regarding the effect 13 that public disclosure of his testimony might have on (1) Arevalos’ continued 14 personal safety while incarcerated; and (2) a potential retrial following his appeal of 15 his criminal convictions. The Court finds these concerns speculative, at best, not 16 compelling. Accordingly, Exhibit 39 shall be unsealed. 17 The declaration of Margaret Mendez identifies peace officer information 18 obtained directly from her review of various officer personnel files. Many of the 19 officers listed play minor, if any, roles in the litigation of this case. Accordingly, the 20 Court finds that the officer’s privacy interests in avoiding disclosure of excerpts of 21 their personnel files is a compelling reason to seal Ms. Mendez’s declaration. 22 However, Ms. Mendez’s declaration also contains information regarding Defendant 23 Arevalos which the Court finds should not be placed under seal. Accordingly, the 24 Court orders that a redacted form of Ms. Mendez’s declaration be docketed. Any 25 statements about officers other than Defendant Arevalos shall be redacted. 26 The declaration of Daniel Cerar contains details surrounding the investigation 27 of the Jane Roe matter. Upon review, there is no compelling reason to maintain this 28 document under seal. The declaration does not identify Jane Roe and otherwise -6- 12cv689 1 contains information already revealed to the public. Accordingly, Daniel Cerar’s 2 declaration shall be unsealed. 3 The declaration of Executive Assistant Chief David Ramirez contains general 4 information about the Internal Affairs Unit and the Jane Roe investigation. Beyond 5 citing Sections 832.7 and 832.8, the City provides no reason why this declaration 6 should remain sealed. Upon review, the Court finds that Ramirez’s declaration 7 includes no information which could be used to “gratify private spite, promote 8 public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets.” Kamakana, 9 447 F.3d at 1179. Accordingly, David Ramirez’s declaration shall be unsealed. 10 The City of San Diego’s memorandum of points and authorities in support of 11 its motion for summary judgment, and concomitant separate statement of facts, shall 12 be unsealed, excepting any information contained within Ms. Mendez’s declaration 13 which the Court previously determined should remain under seal. 14 15 Plaintiff’s Documents Filed Under Seal Exhibit F contains a transcript of the deposition of Lori Adams. The parties 16 agree that no compelling reason exists to keep this document under seal. 17 Accordingly, Exhibit F shall be unsealed. 18 Exhibit I is a psychological report of Defendant Arevalos conducted by Dr. 19 Nicole Friedman. The exhibit contains the personal medical information of 20 Defendant Arevalos. Moreover, the exhibit was entirely irrelevant to the Court’s 21 determination of the summary judgment motions. Based on the highly personal 22 information contained within the document, and its irrelevance to this matter, the 23 Court finds compelling reasons to seal Exhibit I. 24 Exhibit R contains excerpts from the deposition of Defendant Arevalos. As 25 discussed previously, no compelling reasons exist to keep Arevalos’ deposition 26 under seal. Accordingly, Exhibit R shall be unsealed. 27 2. 28 Document number 232 permitted Plaintiff Jane Doe to filed various Documents Filed Under Seal Pursuant to Doc. No. 232 -7- 12cv689 1 documents under seal in support of her oppositions to the summary judgment 2 motions filed by the City and the Supervisor Defendants. 3 Exhibit B-1 contains records pertaining to the investigations of the Jane Doe 4 and Jane Roe matters. Much of the information comes in the form of officer 5 interviews. Upon review of the document, the Court finds that it does not divulge 6 the private personnel information of any officer. However, the document does 7 divulge “MP’s” true name. Accordingly, the Court orders this identifying 8 information redacted and Exhibit B-1 unsealed. 9 Exhibits B-10 and B-11 contain transcripts of an interview of Sgt. Kevin 10 Friedman during the Jane Roe investigation. The City contends this evidence should 11 be sealed because it is inadmissible hearsay. Regardless of the admissibility of the 12 documents, the Court is not persuaded that compelling reasons exist to keep these 13 document sealed. Indeed, the documents largely discuss facts already in the public 14 record. However, the documents do divulge Jane Roe’s true name. Accordingly, the 15 Court orders her name redacted and Exhibits B-10 and B-11 unsealed. 16 Exhibit F contains excerpts from the deposition of Lori Adams. As discussed 17 previously, this document shall be unsealed. 18 Exhibit I contains the report of psychologist Dr. Nicole Friedman. As 19 discussed previously, this document shall remain sealed. 20 Exhibit R contains excerpts from the deposition of Defendant Arevalos. As 21 discussed previously, this document shall be unsealed. 22 Exhibit W contains excerpts from the deposition of Lt. Timothy Saelens. 23 Therein, Lt. Saelens discusses information that was irrelevant to resolution of the 24 motions for summary judgment. Moreover, the information divulges private 25 information from the personnel files of officers not related to this action. 26 Accordingly, the Court finds this exhibit of the kind that would “gratify private 27 spite, promote public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets.” 28 See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179. Exhibit W shall remain sealed. -8- 12cv689 1 Exhibit X contains excerpts from the deposition testimony of Lt. Rudy Tai. 2 His testimony relates to information already in the public record. Accordingly, there 3 is no compelling reason to keep Lt. Tai’s testimony under seal. Exhibit X shall be 4 unsealed. 5 Exhibit Z contains excerpts from the deposition testimony of Executive 6 Assistant Chief David Ramirez. This document contains no sensitive information 7 that compels secrecy. Accordingly, Exhibit Z shall be unsealed. 8 Exhibit FF contains excerpts from the deposition of Det. Stacee Botsford. 9 The entirety of Det. Botsford’s testimony pertains to incidents already in the public 10 record, whether in this case or otherwise. Thus, the Court finds no compelling 11 reason to keep this document under seal. Exhibit FF shall be unsealed. 12 Exhibit HH contains excerpts from the deposition of Chief Robert Kanaski. 13 Upon review, the Court finds that no sensitive information is disclosed in this 14 document, and thus orders Exhibit HH unsealed. 15 Exhibit II contains excerpts from the deposition of Kevin Friedman. Upon 16 review, the Court finds that the deposition testimony does not contain information 17 necessitating sealing the document. However, the exhibit attached to the deposition 18 testimony was retrieved directly from Friedman’s personnel file and contains 19 sensitive, personal information. Accordingly, the Court concludes that compelling 20 reasons exist to keep the attachment to Exhibit II under seal, while the deposition 21 testimony itself shall be unsealed. 22 Exhibit OO contains the expert report of Dr. Robert W. Taylor. Dr. Taylor’s 23 report is replete with references to information from officer personnel files, and 24 contains opinions which are largely irrelevant to this action. The Court finds that 25 Dr. Taylor’s report, if unsealed, could result in improper use for scandalous or 26 libelous purposes and thus orders that it remain under seal. 27 Exhibit PP contains the expert report of Jeffery Noble. For largely the same 28 reasons stated with respect to the expert report of Dr. Taylor above, the Court finds -9- 12cv689 1 that compelling reasons exist to keep Mr. Noble’s report under seal. 2 Exhibit GGG contains the expert report of Dr. Fran Gengo. The City 3 concedes that this exhibit may be unsealed. 4 Exhibit VVV contains excerpts from the deposition of MP. The City 5 concedes that if MP’s name is redacted, this exhibit may be unsealed. 6 Exhibit ZZZ contains Jeffrey Noble’s supplemental expert report. For the 7 reasons stated previously with respect to Mr. Noble’s original expert report, the 8 Court finds compelling reasons exist to keep this document under seal. 9 Exhibit GGGG contains Dr. Robert Taylor’s supplemental expert report. For 10 the reasons stated previously with respect to Dr. Taylor’s original expert report, the 11 Court finds compelling reasons exist to keep this document under seal. 12 Exhibit JJJJ contains a memorandum from Chief David Bejarano. The City 13 contends this document falls within the official information privilege. It cites the 14 Declaration of Executive Assistant Chief David Ramirez for this proposition. 15 However, the City includes no particular arguments pertaining to Exhibit JJJJ 16 specifically that would require it to be filed under seal. Upon review, the Court 17 finds Exhibit JJJJ benign and incapable of causing any damage to the City’s affairs. 18 Accordingly, Exhibit JJJJ shall be unsealed. 19 Exhibit LLLL contains the personnel file of Defendant Arevalos. As this 20 exhibit contains the entirety of Arevalos’ file, including sensitive, irrelevant 21 information, the Court finds compelling reasons exist to keep Exhibit LLLL under 22 seal. 23 Finally, all memoranda and statements of fact filed under seal pursuant to 24 Doc. No. 232 shall be unsealed, excepting those portions which contain information 25 the Court ordered to remain under seal above. 26 3. 27 Document number 240 permitted Plaintiff Jane Doe to file two additional Documents Filed Under Seal Pursuant to Doc. No. 240 28 documents under seal in support of her opposition to the City’s summary judgment - 10 - 12cv689 1 motion. The Court finds that both of these documents contain sensitive information 2 involving unrelated SDPD personnel of the sort that would “gratify private spite, 3 promote public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets.” 4 Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179. Thus, the Court finds there is a compelling reason to 5 keep these documents under seal.5 6 4. 7 Document number 256 permitted Plaintiff to file an SDPD Internal Affairs Document Filed Under Seal Pursuant to Doc. No. 256 8 Investigation Report under seal (Exhibit AA). The City now contends that the 9 document should remain under seal pursuant to section California Penal Code 10 section 832.7 and the official information privilege. Upon review of the document, 11 the Court finds that the report largely echoes the well-known facts surrounding 12 Defendant Arevalos’ encounter with Jane Doe. Thus, the Court finds no compelling 13 reason to keep the report under seal. However, the Court notes that Jane Doe’s 14 identity is revealed, in part, on page 0370. This reference to her identity shall be 15 redacted; otherwise Exhibit AA in its present form (complete with existing 16 redactions of Jane Doe’s identity) shall be unsealed. 17 5. 18 Document number 257 permitted the City to filed a reply brief and opposition Documents Filed Under Seal Pursuant to Doc. No. 257 19 to Plaintiff’s separate statement of facts under seal. The only redacted portion of the 20 reply brief relates to the MP incident, but does not reveal MP’s true name. 21 Accordingly, based on previously findings throughout this order, the City’s reply 22 brief shall be unsealed in its entirety. 23 Similarly, the City’s opposition to Plaintiff’s separate statement of facts 24 should be unsealed. It redacts only information which the Court previously found to 25 not warrant secrecy, or information already in the public record. 26 6. Document Filed Under Seal Pursuant to Doc. No. 258 27 5 The City also should remain under seal; however, 28 this exhibit was never contends that Exhibit RRRR in the public record since December filed under seal and has been 18, 2013. - 11 - 12cv689 1 Document number 258 permitted the Supervisor Defendants to file under seal 2 an unredacted version of their response to Plaintiff’s separate statement of facts. 3 This document shall be unsealed, as it contains no sensitive information. 4 7. Documents Filed Under Seal Pursuant to Doc. No. 273 5 Document number 273 permitted Plaintiff to file a variety of documents under 6 seal in support of Plaintiff’s opposition to the City’s motion for summary judgment. 7 These documents were not considered by the Court in determining the City’s 8 summary judgment motion. In light of the minimal relevance and sensitive 9 information contained therein, the Court finds compelling reasons exist to maintain 10 these documents under seal. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178 (“[C]ompelling 11 reasons . . . exist when such court files might have become a vehicle for improper 12 purposes, such as the use of records to gratify private spite, promote public scandal, 13 circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets.”). 14 8. 15 Document number 302 permitted Plaintiff to filed the declaration of “DB” Documents Filed Under Seal Pursuant to Doc. No. 302 16 under seal. The City does not object to the unsealing of this document. 17 Accordingly, the declaration of “DB” shall be unsealed. 18 19 CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, the Court orders the unsealing of the majority of 20 documents filed in conjunction with the summary judgment motions previously 21 decided by this Court. Specifically: 22 The following documents referenced in document number 209 shall be 23 unsealed: 24 • Exhibit 30 25 • Exhibit 39 26 • Declaration of Daniel Cerar 27 • Declaration of Assistant Chief David Ramirez 28 • Plaintiff’s Exhibit F - 12 - 12cv689 1 • Plaintiff’s Exhibit R 2 The following documents referenced in document number 209 shall be 3 unsealed following necessary redactions: 4 • Exhibit 15 5 • Declaration of Margaret Mendez 6 • The City’s memorandum of points and authorities and separate 7 8 statement of facts The following documents referenced in document number 209 shall remain 9 sealed: 10 • 11 The following documents referenced in document number 232 shall be Plaintiff’s Exhibit I. 12 unsealed: 13 • Exhibit F 14 • Exhibit R 15 • Exhibit X 16 • Exhibit Z 17 • Exhibit FF 18 • Exhibit HH 19 • Exhibit GGG 20 • Exhibit JJJJ 21 The following documents referenced in document number 232 shall be 22 unsealed following necessary redactions: 23 • Exhibit B-1 24 • Exhibit B-10 25 • Exhibit B-11 26 • Exhibit II 27 • Exhibit VVV 28 • All corresponding memoranda and statements of fact - 13 - 12cv689 1 The following documents referenced in document number 232 shall remain 2 sealed: 3 • Exhibit I 4 • Exhibit W 5 • Exhibit OO 6 • Exhibit PP 7 • Exhibit ZZZ 8 • Exhibit GGG 9 • Exhibit LLLL 10 The following documents referenced in document number 240 shall remain 11 sealed: 12 • Exhibit SSSS 13 • Unredacted Declaration of Joseph G. Dicks 14 The following document referenced in document number 256 shall be 15 unsealed following necessary redactions: 16 • 17 The following documents referenced in document number 257 shall be Exhibit AA 18 unsealed: 19 • The City’s reply brief 20 • The City’s opposition to Plaintiff’s separate statement of facts 21 The following document referenced in document number 258 shall be 22 unsealed: 23 • 24 25 The Supervisor Defendants’ responseto Plaintiff’s separate statement of facts The following documents referenced in document number 273 shall remain 26 sealed: 27 • Exhibit UUUU 28 • Exhibit WWWW - 14 - 12cv689 1 • Supplemental Declaration of Joseph G. Dicks 2 The following documents referenced in document number 302 shall be 3 unsealed: 4 • Declaration of DB 5 The parties shall perform any necessary redactions and file unsealed versions 6 of all pertinent documents within five days of this order. The Clerk of Court is 7 instructed to unseal all documents which do not require redacting and which may be 8 unsealed in their entirety. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 DATED: May 14, 2014 11 12 13 Hon. Michael M. Anello United States District Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 - 15 - 12cv689
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
