Dew v. City of Seaside

Background

The parties filed administrative motions asking the court to seal portions of their summary-judgment briefs and exhibits. The plaintiffs sought to seal Exhibits H and N to a declaration and portions of their opposition brief that referred to those exhibits. Exhibit H contained personnel-file documents for Defendant Fernandez. The defendants sought to seal Exhibit I to another declaration, which contained additional excerpts from the deposition transcript of Deputy Chief Nick Borges.

Court’s analysis

Because the materials were connected to a summary-judgment motion, the court applied the “compelling reasons” standard. That standard requires a party seeking secrecy for court records connected to a dispositive motion to identify specific reasons that outweigh the public’s strong interest in access to judicial records. The court also noted that local rules require a sealing request to be narrowly tailored and supported by a showing that the material is privileged, a trade secret, or otherwise legally protected.

The parties’ only stated justification was that the information had been designated “Confidential” under a stipulated protective order. The court held that this designation alone did not establish that the materials could be sealed. The court also found that the plaintiffs’ request did not comply with the applicable local rule and that the defendants, as the designating party, had not filed the declaration required by that rule within four days of the plaintiffs’ motion.

After reviewing the challenged portions of the plaintiffs’ brief, the court found no compelling reason to seal passages describing high-level, generic details about Exhibit N. Those passages were relevant to the plaintiffs’ theory that the City could be held responsible for ratifying conduct, and they did not reveal more detail than the defendants’ briefs generally disclosed. The court specifically identified page 29, lines 7–9, and page 30, lines 10–14, as portions that should not be included in a renewed sealing request.

Disposition

The court denied the parties’ administrative motion to seal. It directed the parties to file public versions of all documents within seven days of the order. The court also permitted the defendants to file a new motion to seal the requested exhibits and the remaining identified portions of the plaintiffs’ opposition brief within seven days. Any renewed request had to identify each document and specific portion at issue and provide specific, tailored reasons supported by declarations and legal authority. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. signed the order.