Opinion
23-cv-2831-NC
08-21-2023
ANTHONY MCGEE Plaintiff, v. ROB BONTA, and many others, Defendants.
ORDER TO PLAINTIFF MCGEE TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY HIS FILINGS SHOULD NOT BE UNSEALED RE: ECF 8, 9
NATHANAEL M. COUSINS, United States Magistrate Judge.
On July 18, 2023, self-represented Plaintiff Anthony McGee filed two submissions with this court asking that they be filed ex parte and under seal. Specifically, McGee filed an amended complaint at ECF 8 and a letter at ECF 9.
This court is a public court and filings are presumptively accessible to the other parties to the case and to the public. Northern District of California Civil Local Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedural requirements for seeking to file materials under seal. Those rules are repeated here in part, with emphasis added in bold italics for McGee's attention:
(a) Right of Access. The public has a right of access to the Court's files. This local rule applies in all instances where a party seeks to conceal information from the public by filing a document, or portions of a document, under seal. A party must explore all reasonable alternatives to filing documents under seal, minimize the number of documents filed under seal, and avoid wherever possible sealing entire documents (as opposed to merely redacting the truly sensitive information in a document).
(b) Necessity of Filing a Motion to Seal. A party must file a motion to seal a document at the same time that the party submits the document. Filing a motion to seal permits the party to provisionally file the document under seal, pending the Court's ruling on the motion to seal. A party need not file a motion to seal if a federal statute or a prior court order in the same case expressly authorizes the party to file certain documents (or portions of documents) under seal.
(c) Contents of Motion to Seal. Reference to a stipulation or protective order that allows a party to designate certain documents as confidential is not sufficient to establish that a document, or portions thereof, are sealable. A motion to seal a party's own document (as opposed to a document designated as confidential by another party, as discussed in subsection (f)) must be filed as an Administrative Motion to File Under Seal in conformance with Civil L.R. 7-11. This requirement applies even if the motion is joined by the opposing party. The motion must include the following:
1. (1) a specific statement of the applicable legal standard and the reasons for keeping a document under seal, including an explanation of:
1. (i) the legitimate private or public interests that warrant sealing;
2. (ii) the injury that will result if sealing is denied; and 3. (iii)why a less restrictive alternative to sealing is not sufficient;
2. (2) evidentiary support from declarations where necessary; and
3. (3) a proposed order that is narrowly tailored to seal only the sealable material, and which lists in table format each document or portion thereof that is sought to be sealed.
Here, McGee did not file a motion to file under seal as required by Local Rule 79-5 and he has not established a basis to seal either his letter or amended complaint. Indeed, it is extremely rare for a court to seal a complaint because the complaint puts the defendants and public on notice of the legal charge asserted by the plaintiff.
The court grants McGee until September 8, 2023, to file a motion, declaration, and proposed order in support of sealing. The court cautions McGee, however, that there is a presumption of public access and it is his burden to show a basis for sealing. A personal preference is not sufficient. If McGee does not properly support his sealing request by September 8, the court intends to unseal both ECF 8 and 9. And future filings will not be filed under seal unless they are accompanied by a proper sealing motion.
IT IS SO ORDERED.