Gordon v. Pacchetti
- Joseph Spero
- 3:20-cv-03910
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Gordon v. City and County of San Francisco, Judge Spero ordered parties to explain why defendants’ sealing request should not be denied.
The defendants seeking to seal the body-camera recordings and medical document, the two police officers depicted in the recordings, and Carlos Gordon, whose medical information was at issue.
What happened
In Gordon v. City and County of San Francisco, the defendants asked to keep two police officers’ body-camera recordings and a medical document about Carlos Gordon’s injury from the public record.
The court said sealing court filings generally requires specific, compelling reasons. It found that the defendants’ general privacy concerns and cited California laws did not, as presented, justify sealing the materials, and it was unclear whether Gordon objected to releasing the medical document.
Judge Spero ordered the parties to explain by October 8, 2021, why the request should not be denied and the materials filed publicly. Anyone seeking sealing had to identify specific harms that disclosure would cause.
The detailed version
- Gordon v. Pacchetti · No. 3:20-cv-03910
- Joseph Spero
- Oct. 4, 2021
Background
The defendants filed an administrative motion to seal two individual police officers’ body-camera recordings and a medical document concerning Gordon’s injury. The order concerns whether those materials should remain confidential when filed in connection with the case.
Legal standard
The court explained that documents filed in judicial proceedings are generally presumed to be publicly accessible. A party seeking to overcome that presumption must ordinarily show “compelling reasons,” including when the documents relate to a summary-judgment motion. Requests to seal must also be narrowly tailored.
Court’s analysis
For the body-camera recordings, the defendants relied on California laws addressing the confidentiality of police personnel records and police-misconduct investigations. The court stated that those state-law provisions did not clearly prohibit disclosure in this federal action. The court also said that, even if the provisions applied, the defendants had not clearly shown actual likely harm or another compelling reason sufficient to overcome the public’s right of access.
The court found that the defendants’ general concerns about the officers’ personal privacy were not persuasive on their own. The recordings showed the officers interacting with the public in their roles as police officers, and the publicly filed motion already described the events. Although the defendants noted that California law might require redaction of information such as home addresses, telephone numbers, complainants’ or witnesses’ identities, and confidential medical information, they did not assert that the recordings contained any such information.
As to the medical document, the court described it as an X-ray report that appeared to reveal little beyond the fact that Gordon had dislocated his shoulder, which was already disclosed in his complaint. The court also said it was unclear whether Gordon objected to public disclosure of the document, even though the defendants invoked his privacy interests.
Order
The court ordered the parties to show cause—that is, to explain—why the sealing motion should not be denied and the materials filed in the public record. Any party seeking to continue pursuing sealing had to file a response by October 8, 2021, identifying specific harms that disclosure would cause. The opinion does not state a final ruling denying the sealing motion.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.