Ashker v. Newsom
- Claudia Wilken
- 4:09-cv-05796
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
Ashker v. Newsom: Judge Illman granted plaintiffs’ motion to seal parts of a reply brief concerning prison safety and gang-activity investigations.
The plaintiffs and defendants in the class action, particularly regarding confidential information about institutional safety, security, and alleged prison gang-activity investigations.
What happened
In Ashker v. Newsom, the plaintiffs asked to seal portions of their reply brief supporting a motion to lift redactions. They submitted a declaration from Rachel Meeropol.
The court found that the material contained confidential information that defendants said could harm institutional safety and security and compromise ongoing investigations of alleged prison gang activity. The court concluded that plaintiffs met the required good-cause standard for sealing.
Judge Robert M. Illman granted the plaintiffs’ administrative motion to file under seal on May 5, 2020.
The detailed version
- Ashker v. Newsom · No. 4:09-cv-05796
- Claudia Wilken
- May 5, 2020
Background
The plaintiffs filed an administrative motion asking the court to seal portions of their reply brief supporting a motion to lift redactions. They submitted a declaration from Rachel Meeropol in support of the request.
Court’s analysis
Under the court’s local rule for sealing records, the plaintiffs had to show that the material qualified for legal protection. The court found that the portions at issue contained confidential information that defendants claimed could harm institutional safety and security if disclosed. The court also found that disclosure could compromise ongoing investigations of alleged prison gang activity.
The court concluded that the plaintiffs had met the required “good cause” standard for sealing the portions of the reply brief.
Disposition
The court granted plaintiffs’ administrative motion to file under seal. The order did not decide the underlying motion to lift redactions or the merits of the broader case.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.