Summary
denying motion to seal where plaintiff failed to show good cause or compelling reasons for sealing
Summary of this case from Martin v. AstrueOpinion
No. C 08-02432 SBA.
May 20, 2008
ORDER [Docket Entry of May 12, 2008]
INTRODUCTION
Before the Court are documents presented for filing under seal. For the reasons discussed below, the request is denied without prejudice.
BACKGROUND
On May 12, 2008, Wong filed a Complaint. See Docket Nos. 1. Wong claims she is mentally disabled and receives Social Security disability benefits. Compl. at 8:2-5. She also claims her benefits go to a payee, whom she has named as a defendant, who did not pay her rent for 15 months, resulting in her eviction by her landlord, the San Francisco Housing Authority (the "SFHA"), in Superior Court case CUD-08-625494. Id. at 8:11-20, 9:17, 11:24-25. As a result, she alleges she is now homeless. Id. at 1:1, 10:3-6, 10:15-16. This same day, someone presented documents for filing under seal in her matter. See Docket Entry dated May 12, 2008.
Because nobody filed a motion to seal, the Court does not know who filed the documents for sealing.
LEGAL STANDARD
The legal standard in this area is provided by Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2006) and Civil Local Rule 79-5. In Kamakana, the Ninth Circuit held it is a general rule that documents filed with a court must be open to public inspection, so the people and the media can monitor court activity. Id. at 1178. Nonetheless, a narrow range of documents have traditionally been exempt from this rule for public policy reasons, such as grand jury transcripts and warrant materials in the midst of a pre-indictment investigation. Id. Documents outside this narrow traditional range, however, must overcome a strong presumption favoring public access. Id. Documents like dispositive motions and their exhibits may overcome this presumption if a party demonstrates a compelling reason for sealing them. Id. at 1179. For documents related to discovery and attached to a non-dispositive motion, however, a party need only show good cause exists to seal, which is the same standard for filing discovery documents under seal, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). Id. at 1179-80.
In addition, Civil Local Rule 79-5(b) states:
(b) Request to File Entire Document Under Seal. Counsel seeking to file an entire document under seal must:
(1) File and serve an Administrative Motion to File Under Seal, in conformance with Civil L.R. 7-11, accompanied by a declaration establishing that the entire document is sealable;
(2) Lodge with the Clerk and serve a proposed order sealing the document;
(3) Lodge with the Clerk and serve the entire document, contained in an 8 ½-inch by 11-inch sealed envelope or other suitable sealed container, with a cover sheet affixed to the envelope or container, setting out the information required by Civil L.R. 3-4(a) and (b) and prominently displaying the notation: "DOCUMENT SUBMITTED UNDER SEAL";
(4) Lodge with the Clerk for delivery to the Judge's chambers a second copy of the entire document, in an identical labeled envelope or container.
N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 79-5(b).
ANALYSIS
Here, the person filing the documents failed to provide any basis for sealing them under either Rule 26's good cause standard or the compelling standard discussed in Kamakana. Further, the person made no effort to comply with Local Rule 79-5(b), including the requirement that they provide a declaration as to why the documents proffered should be filed under seal. As such, the documents will not be filed under seal.
CONCLUSION
The Court denies without prejudice the request to file the documents presented on May 12, 2008 for filing under seal.
IT IS SO ORDERED.