Ellawendy v. Benal

Background

The parties submitted a stipulated protective order governing information they might designate as confidential. The order concerns the case brought by Abdel Fatah Ellawendy against Steve Bernal, Commander Bass, Commander Bier, and Robert Lingly, each sued in an individual capacity.

Ruling

The court approved the stipulated protective order with conditions.

First, the parties must make a good-faith determination that information marked confidential truly warrants protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). Confidentiality designations must be narrowly tailored to material for which there is good cause. The court warned that repeated over-designation could result in materials being undesignated on a wholesale basis.

Second, material filed with the court cannot be treated as confidential merely because it was designated that way. The filing party must submit a request to file the material under seal that complies with Civil Local Rule 79-5, identifies the specific portions to be sealed or redacted, and obtains an individualized sealing order. The order does not provide blanket advance permission to seal future filings.

Third, a request to seal information concerning potential hazards to the public's health, safety, or well-being will be granted only for the most compelling reason. The request must specifically identify any proposed sealing or redaction involving those issues.

Fourth, chambers copies must include both redacted and unredacted material, with confidential portions clearly identified. The court stated that confidential chambers copies will generally be handled like other chambers copies and typically recycled rather than shredded.

Fifth, relying on Ninth Circuit precedent, the court stated that documents used in summary-judgment motions and other dispositive motions require a showing of compelling reasons—not merely good cause—to be sealed. The same standard applies regardless of the parties' agreement. The court said most summary-judgment filings should be open to the public, while identifying examples such as Social Security numbers, names of juveniles, home addresses and phone numbers, and compelling trade secrets as information that may qualify. Motions in limine, which concern trial, are likewise generally public absent compelling reasons. Noncompliant submissions may be stricken in their entirety.

Sixth, confidential materials used openly in hearings or at trial will not receive special treatment unless the court later orders otherwise. Seventh, any party may move to remove a confidentiality designation, and the party seeking protection bears the burden of showing that the material qualifies. Eighth, the court will retain jurisdiction over disputes arising from the protective order for 90 days after final termination of the action.

Effect of the Order

This was an ancillary discovery and court-filing order, not a decision on the underlying claims. It sets conditions for confidentiality and sealing while emphasizing public access to court proceedings.