Regal v. County of Santa Clara
- Beth Freeman
- 5:22-cv-04321
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Regal v. County of Santa Clara, Judge Freeman granted in part and denied in part plaintiffs’ motion to seal jail-surveillance video.
The order directly affects the plaintiffs and the County of Santa Clara. The video concerns the security of the Elmwood Correctional Complex and the privacy of inmates shown in the footage who are not involved in the lawsuit. Plaintiffs must publicly file the opposition and supporting exhibits not covered by the granted sealing request.
What happened
In Devin Regal v. County of Santa Clara, plaintiffs asked the court to decide whether materials the County had marked confidential should remain sealed. The materials were exhibits and references supporting plaintiffs’ opposition to the defendants’ motion for summary judgment and had been temporarily filed under seal.
The County requested sealing only for a video compilation of jail-surveillance footage. The court found compelling reasons because the video showed the layout and possible entry and exit points of a correctional-facility unit and depicted inmates who were not involved in the lawsuit.
Judge Beth Labson Freeman granted in part the plaintiffs’ motion as to the video compilation and otherwise denied it. The plaintiffs must file their opposition and all supporting exhibits other than the video on the public docket in unredacted form.
The detailed version
- Regal v. County of Santa Clara · No. 5:22-cv-04321
- Beth Freeman
- Jan. 23, 2025
Background
Plaintiffs filed an administrative motion asking the court to consider whether materials designated confidential by the County should be filed under seal. The materials were submitted with plaintiffs’ opposition to defendants’ motion for summary judgment and had been provisionally filed under seal.
Under the court’s local rules, the party that designated material as confidential must provide a statement supporting sealing. Because the materials were connected to a summary-judgment motion, the County had to show “compelling reasons” for sealing them.
Court’s Analysis
The County stated that it sought sealing only for a video compilation of jail-surveillance footage submitted manually as Exhibit 1 to the declaration of Jonathan Marvin. It did not seek sealing of plaintiffs’ other exhibits or redactions to plaintiffs’ opposition brief.
The court found that the County had shown compelling reasons to seal the video compilation. The footage was not otherwise publicly available and showed the layout of a unit at the Elmwood Correctional Complex, including possible entry and exit points. It also showed inmates who were not involved in the lawsuit. The court determined that the security concerns and the privacy interests of those inmates satisfied the applicable standard.
Disposition
The court ordered that plaintiffs’ motion to consider whether another party’s material should be sealed was GRANTED IN PART as to the video compilation of jail-surveillance footage. The motion otherwise was DENIED. Plaintiffs were ordered to file their opposition to defendants’ motion for summary judgment, along with all supporting exhibits other than the video compilation, on the public docket in unredacted form. The order terminated ECF 114.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.