Flanigan v. Harris, Hicklin and Tam

Background

This omnibus order addressed all remaining administrative motions to seal, meaning requests to restrict public access to court filings and their attachments. The court explained that records more than tangentially related to the merits may be sealed only for “compelling reasons,” while records only tangentially related may be sealed upon a showing of “good cause.” The request must identify the private or public interests supporting secrecy, the harm that would result from disclosure, and why a narrower alternative would not be sufficient. Supporting declarations must provide specific explanations rather than general statements or reliance only on a confidentiality designation or protective order.

Rulings on the sealing motions

Docket No. 268

The court granted the motion to seal seven exhibits supporting defendants’ first and second motions in limine. Those motions had not been considered by the court and had been replaced by later motions filed before the October 2023 trial, so the court found that the public interest in the material was minimal.

Docket Nos. 295 and 297

The court denied the motions to seal an audio-recording transcript that defendants had designated as confidential and highlighted portions of plaintiff’s request for permission to seek reconsideration that referred to the transcript. The transcript’s contents were central to the motion practice, creating a strong public interest in disclosure, and no party showed that disclosure would cause harm.

Docket Nos. 335, 346, and 349

The court ruled as follows:

- Docket No. 335-3, San Francisco Police Department Chronicle of Investigation, 2017: Granted. The report concerned an investigation occurring years after the events at issue, was not on either party’s exhibit list, and contained private information about witnesses. - Docket No. 346-3, Probation Order, 2014: Granted as amended. The only information defendants continued to seek to redact was plaintiff’s CII number, and the court found that request narrowly tailored. - Docket No. 346-4, San Francisco Police Department Computer Aided Dispatch: Granted as amended. The only information defendants continued to seek to redact was a non-party’s phone number, and the court found that request narrowly tailored. - Docket No. 346-5, Toxicology Report: Denied. Defendants did not seek to keep the material confidential, and no justification for sealing was provided. - Docket No. 346-6, Traffic Collision Report No. 140922986, Supplemental Report: Denied for the same reason as Docket No. 346-5. - Docket No. 346-7, Traffic Collision Report No. 140922986, DMV Statement: Denied for the same reason as Docket No. 346-5. - Docket No. 346-8, Traffic Collision Report No. 140922986, DUI Forms: Denied for the same reason as Docket No. 346-5. - Docket No. 349-3, Plaintiff’s Fifth Motion in Limine: Denied. The redacted portions concerned the transcript that the court had already declined to seal, and defendants did not seek to keep the material confidential. - Docket No. 349-4, Lampkin Transcript: Denied. Although defendants objected based on an officer’s privacy interests and the lack of confirmation that the third party had consented to public disclosure, the third party, William Lampkin, testified at trial about the relevant details. Defendants did not identify specific information in the transcript that could harm the officer and overcome the public interest in disclosure.

Deadline and disposition

The court ordered that all documents required to be refiled under the order be refiled in full compliance by April 2, 2024, at 12:00 p.m. The order also stated that plaintiff’s appointed pro bono counsel had formally withdrawn for purposes of dissociating themselves from plaintiff’s appeal, but requested that counsel handle the refilings for plaintiff. The order concluded, “IT IS SO ORDERED.”