Opinion
05-09-2013
JOHN ARMSTRONG, et al., Plaintiffs, v. EDMUND G. BROWN JR., et al., Defendants.
No. C 94-2307 CW
ORDER GRANTING
MOTIONS AND
STIPULATIONS TO
FILE UNDER SEAL
(Docket Nos. 2235,
2235-1, 2258,
2260, 2271, 2271-
1, 2281, 2299 and
2301)
Plaintiffs seek to seal the unredacted versions of the declaration of Corene Kendrick in support of their motion for a further enforcement order and an order holding Defendants in contempt, the declaration of Ms. Kendrick in support of their reply brief and the expert declaration of Pablo Stewart, M.D. Docket Nos. 2235 and 2271. Defendants have stipulated that these documents should be filed under seal. Docket No. 2235-1 and 2271-1. Plaintiffs also seek to file under seal the unredacted declarations of Jessica Saravia, Liz Mendoza and Nadine Valentien, which they also offer in connection with their enforcement and contempt motion. Docket No. 2281. Plaintiffs represent that Defendants object to the filing of the Saravia, Mendoza and Valentien declarations under seal and have submitted an email in which Defendants expressed their opposition. See Kendrick Decl. ¶ 5, Ex. C, Docket No. 2282. However, Defendants have not filed a response to Plaintiffs' motion to seal to oppose the request that the material be sealed.
Defendants seek to file under seal the unredacted declarations of G. Pannett and R. Knudsen, as well as the unredacted exhibits to the declarations of V. Ramirez, M. Knowles and A. Sweeny, all offered in connection with their opposition to Plaintiffs' enforcement and contempt motion. Docket No. 2258. They also seek to file under seal the unredacted version of the exhibit to the declaration of A. Sweeny, offered in connection with their administrative motion to submit further evidence. Docket No. 2299. Plaintiffs have stipulated that these documents should be filed under seal. Docket Nos. 2260 and 2301.
Because the public interest favors filing all court documents in the public record, any party seeking to file a document under seal must demonstrate good cause to do so. Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass'n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010). This cannot be established simply by showing that the document is subject to a protective order or by stating in general terms that the material is considered to be confidential, but rather must be supported by a sworn declaration demonstrating with particularity the need to file each document under seal. See Civil Local Rule 79-5(a).
The parties have filed declarations in which they attest that the documents that they seek to seal contain personal information of prisoners, including their names, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) identification numbers and disability information. They have filed redacted versions of these documents that omit any information that identifies a prisoner. The Court finds that the parties have established sufficient reasons to support the filing of these unredacted documents under seal.
To the extent that, in their email to Plaintiffs, Defendants opposed the filing of the Saravia, Mendoza and Valentien declarations under seal, because the declarations constitute "improper sur-reply materials" and "additional evidence that Plaintiffs could have filed with their initial moving papers," Kendrick Decl. ¶ 5, Ex. C, Docket No. 2282, the Court notes that this is a separate question from whether the documents are sealable. See Civil Local Rule 79-5(a). Defendants do not dispute that the relevant information should be protected from public disclosure.
Accordingly, the parties' motions and stipulations to file under seal are GRANTED (Docket Nos. 2235, 2235-1, 2258, 2260, 2271, 2271-1, 2281, 2299 and 2301). Within four days of the date of this Order, the parties shall electronically file under seal the unredacted versions of the documents identified above.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
____________
CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge