Cross v. Central Contra Costa Transit Authority

Background

Shannon Cross filed a motion asking the court to consider whether materials submitted by another party should be sealed. The motion concerned documents connected to a summary-judgment motion. The Central Contra Costa Transit Authority responded that disciplinary records of non-party employees should be sealed and that personal identifying information in other documents should be redacted. The Authority also asked the court to exclude several exhibits because Cross had allegedly not properly referenced them in her opposition.

Cross agreed to withdraw Exhibit B109 because she considered it irrelevant to the summary-judgment motion. The court found that Cross had sufficiently identified the other challenged evidence and denied the Authority’s request to exclude Exhibits B22–33, 43, and 48–120 from consideration in the sealing order.

Sealing standard

Because the documents related to summary judgment, the court applied the “compelling reasons” standard. Under that standard, the party seeking secrecy must provide specific reasons that outweigh the public’s general right of access to court records, and any sealing request must be limited to material that genuinely requires protection.

Court’s ruling

The court agreed that social security numbers, dates of birth, home addresses, and phone numbers should be sealed. It also ordered redaction of email addresses and driver’s-license numbers. The court declined to seal all names and nonresidential addresses, including addresses showing where an incident occurred.

The court rejected the Authority’s request to seal the disciplinary records of non-party employees in their entirety. It found that the Authority had not made the required particularized showing and concluded that redacting identifying information could protect the affected third parties while allowing the remaining information to be disclosed. Cross was ordered to redact the names of non-party Central Contra Costa Transit Authority employees from disciplinary and personnel records.

The court kept Exhibits C1, C2, C3, and C4 sealed in their entirety because they were video exhibits that could not be easily redacted. The court had already restricted access to Cross’s opposition brief and ordered Cross to refile it with the required redactions. The clerk was directed to maintain the flash drive containing Exhibits C1–C4 under seal. The motion was granted in part and denied in part.