Carrillo v. County of Santa Cruz
- Beth Freeman
- 5:20-cv-06973
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Carrillo v. County of Santa Cruz, Judge Freeman denied without prejudice the plaintiff’s motion to seal parts of an amended complaint.
German Carrillo and the other plaintiffs, who sought to seal portions of their first amended complaint, and the County of Santa Cruz and the other defendants, whose confidentiality designation was cited as the reason for sealing.
What happened
In Carrillo v. County of Santa Cruz, the plaintiff asked to keep parts of the first amended complaint from public view because County defendants had labeled the material confidential under a protective order.
The court said the parties had not followed the district’s rules for sealing court filings. A protective-order confidentiality label alone was not enough to justify sealing.
Judge Beth Labson Freeman denied the motion without prejudice. The plaintiff may file another motion, but it must follow the local rules and the court’s standing orders.
The detailed version
- Carrillo v. County of Santa Cruz · No. 5:20-cv-06973
- Beth Freeman
- Aug. 5, 2021
Background
The plaintiff moved to file portions of the first amended complaint under seal. The stated reason was that the County had designated certain material as confidential under a stipulated protective order.
Court’s analysis
The court explained that court filings are generally open to public inspection. Depending on how closely the filing relates to the merits of the case, a party seeking to seal material must show either “compelling reasons” or “good cause.” In all events, a sealing request must be narrowly tailored and comply with Civil Local Rule 79-5.
When sealing is requested because another party designated material as confidential under a protective order, the designating party—not merely the filing party—must establish that the material is sealable. The moving party must also provide proof that the designating party received notice. The court stated that simply referring to a confidentiality designation or protective order was not sufficient.
Ruling
The court held that the plaintiff’s stated justification—that the complaint contained information designated confidential by the County defendants—did not satisfy the local rules. Because the parties had not complied with those rules, the court denied without prejudice the plaintiff’s motion to file under seal. Any re-filed motion must comply with the local rules and the court’s standing orders regarding sealing motions.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.