Cheteni v. Malia Vella and Carrie Lopes
- Susan Illston
- 3:23-cv-06286
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Freedom Cheteni v. Vella, Judge Illston denied defendants’ motion to seal exhibits and redactions because they showed no compelling reason.
The order affects the defendants’ request to keep specified exhibits and redactions from public view, as well as public access to those court filings. It also concerns materials supplied or discussed by Freedom Cheteni.
What happened
In Freedom Cheteni v. Malia Vella and Carrie Lopes, the defendants asked the court to decide whether materials designated confidential under a protective order should remain sealed from the public. The materials supported the defendants’ motion for summary judgment.
The defendants said they did not believe the materials should be sealed. Freedom Cheteni did not respond as required by the court’s local rule. The court explained that documents connected to a dispositive motion generally require compelling reasons to overcome the public’s right to access court records.
Judge Susan Illston denied the motion in its entirety. She found no compelling reason to seal the listed exhibits, which included spreadsheets, names, email addresses, identification numbers, zip codes, deposition excerpts, and redacted portions of declarations and the summary-judgment motion.
The detailed version
- Cheteni v. Malia Vella and Carrie Lopes · No. 3:23-cv-06286
- Susan Illston
- Mar. 11, 2026
Background
On January 30, 2026, the defendants filed an administrative motion asking the court to consider whether materials supplied by Freedom Cheteni and treated as confidential under the parties’ stipulated protective order should be sealed from public view. The materials were submitted in connection with the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The defendants stated that they did not believe the materials should be sealed. Cheteni did not file a response, as required by Civil Local Rule 79-5(f).
Legal standard
The court stated that a party seeking to seal documents connected to a dispositive motion, such as a motion for summary judgment, must overcome the strong presumption of public access by showing compelling reasons for sealing them. The court noted that courts in the Ninth Circuit often seal personally identifying information about third parties when documents contain information such as addresses, telephone numbers, personal email addresses, or medical records.
Ruling
The court denied the defendants’ motion in its entirety. It denied sealing for each of the following categories:
- Exhibit 78, a spreadsheet containing purported students’ names, student identification numbers, school email addresses, and zip codes. - Exhibit 79, another spreadsheet containing purported students’ names, student identification numbers, school email addresses, and zip codes. - Exhibit 70, portions of Cheteni’s deposition transcript discussing Exhibits 78 and
- - Exhibit 35, a document containing school email addresses and the date on which an email-account password was last changed. - An additional exhibit containing the names of 30 purported students and 25 teachers. - Redactions to Exhibit 69, consisting of deposition-transcript portions discussing Exhibit
- - Redactions to portions of April Woodcheke’s declaration discussing Exhibit
- - Redactions to portions of Jimmy Franco’s declaration discussing Exhibits 35 and
- - Redactions within the defendants’ summary-judgment motion drawn from the confidentially marked portion of Cheteni’s deposition discussing Exhibits 78 and 79.
For each category, the court found that no compelling reason existed to keep the material sealed. The order was signed by Judge Susan Illston and dated March 11, 2026.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.