Upshaw v. Alameda County

Background

The court resolved Alameda County’s administrative motion to file documents under seal and approved the parties’ stipulated protective order concerning the same documents, subject to the court’s standing orders.

The County sought to seal two body-camera videos from sheriff’s deputies’ nighttime safety checks and two photographs of lead plaintiff Tikisha Upshaw’s housing unit. The materials depicted units at Santa Rita Jail that house women. The County identified jail security and third-party privacy as reasons for sealing.

The plaintiffs argued that the County had waived its ability to seek sealing because television stations had previously filmed and broadcast video of the same facilities. They also argued that the County’s status as a public entity weighed against sealing.

Legal standard

The court explained that documents connected to dispositive motions generally may be sealed only for “compelling reasons,” while documents connected only to nondispositive motions may be sealed upon a particularized showing of “good cause” under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). The stricter standard can apply to a technically nondispositive motion when it is more than tangentially related to the merits.

The court held that the compelling-reasons standard applied because the sealing request concerned the County’s opposition to the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction. Although a preliminary-injunction motion is technically nondispositive, the court treated it as closely related to the merits. The court also noted that sealing requests must comply with Civil Local Rule 79-5 and be narrowly tailored to seal only material entitled to protection.

Ruling

The court rejected the plaintiffs’ waiver argument because they had not shown that the specific videos and photographs had previously been publicly released. It also concluded that the County’s status as a public entity did not overcome the security goals of a detention facility.

The court found that the County had demonstrated compelling security reasons for sealing the exhibits. The body-camera videos showed sensitive, secure areas and practices used during safety checks. The photographs also showed sensitive and secure areas that prison officials had never intended to make public.

Alameda County’s administrative motion to file the documents under seal was granted. The parties’ stipulated protective order concerning those documents was approved, except where it conflicts with the court’s standing orders.