From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Morton v. Cnty. of San Diego

United States District Court, Southern District of California
Jun 26, 2024
21-cv-1428-MMA-DDL (S.D. Cal. Jun. 26, 2024)

Opinion

21-cv-1428-MMA-DDL

06-26-2024

MARILYN MORTON, et al., Plaintiffs, v. COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, et al., Defendants.


ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL; AND [DOC. NO. 226] GRANTING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO ALLOW NON-ELECTRONIC FILING [DOC. NO. 231]

HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

On June 14, 2024, Defendants the County of San Diego, Hosanna Alto, and Janine Sparks filed a renewed motion for leave to file Exhibits 1-45 in support of their summary judgment motion under seal. Doc. No. 226. Thereafter, they filed a motion seeking leave to allow the non-electronic filing of eleven audio file exhibits. Doc. No. 231. Their motions are unopposed to date.

When presented with a request to file a document under seal, the Court begins with the strong presumption in favor of the “general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and documents.” Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 n.7 (1978); see also Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). “The presumption of access is ‘based on the need for federal courts, although independent-indeed, particularly because they are independent-to have a measure of accountability and for the public to have confidence in the administration of justice.'” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1048 (2d Cir. 1995)). When a party moves to file under seal a motion or documents attached to a motion, the focus is on the underlying motion and whether it is “more than tangentially related to the underlying cause of action.” Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1099. If the motion is more than tangentially related to the merits, like here, the movant must show compelling reasons for overcoming the presumption in favor of public access. See id. at 109-99.

According to the County, Alto, and Sparks, compelling reasons exist to seal Exhibits 1-45 because of the risk they will be used for improper purposes. Doc. No. 226 at 10. Additionally, they explain that these exhibits consist of confidential law enforcement documents and reports, government personnel files, and medical records. Id. The Court finds that these exhibits contain sensitive information, not generally accessible to the public, and that the need to keep these records and information private so as to protect various individual's privacy and protect against the risk of improper use are compelling reasons to file them under seal. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the motion and DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to file Exhibits 1-45 (Doc. No. 227) UNDER SEAL.

Additionally, the Court finds that the eleven audio file exhibits are not capable of electronic filing and therefore GRANTS the motion for leave to allow their nonelectronic filing. The Court DIRECTS Defendants to manually file the following exhibits in accordance with this district's Electronic Case Filing Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual § 2.k as soon as practicable and in no event later than July 15, 2024 :

5-15-20 1915 (MM) SD02088 - 10.36.144.70-1b3d940f0a249046573fa9cdda00fdba.mp3

Audio Ex. No.

App. Evidence

Ex. No. File Name

Bates

01.

30 A 31 B

5-12-20 1741 (EL) SD02059 - 10.36.101.25-0b7685980a24651929f68ad96511bfc8.mp3

SD02059

02.

30 B 31 C

SD02088

03.

30 C 31 E

5-16-20 1907 (EL) SD02093 - 10.36.148.13-205f5acb0a24940d7f264672d65939b5.mp3

SD02093

04.

30 D 31 F

5-16-20 1923 (MM) SD02094 - 10.36.148.13-206d63fe0a24940d7f26467272ba02df.mp3

SD02094

05.

30 E 31 G

5-17-20 0713 (MM) SD02072 - 10.36.101.27-22f74a690a24651b73874f257dfd9573.mp3

SD02072

06.

30 F 31 H

5-17-20 0800 (EL) SD02075 - 10.36.101.27-2322c3cf0a24651b73874f25a1a5a7ac.mp3

SD02075

07.

31 A

5-12-20 0410 (MM) SD02090 - 10.36.144.70-088fbcc70a24904618de5a42e40fc868.mp3

SD02090

08.

31 D

5-15-20 1949 (EL) SD02055 - 10.36.101.23-1b5eabc20a24651711a78895331e2199.mp3

SD02055

09.

36

2020-05-19 Phone call, Det. Sisto to M. Morton S.D. 01848

SD01848

10.

37

2020-05-19 Phone call, Det. Sisto to E. Luong S.D. 01847

SD 01847

11.

38

2020-05-26 Phone call, Det. Sisto to E. Luong S.D. 01863

SD 01863

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Morton v. Cnty. of San Diego

United States District Court, Southern District of California
Jun 26, 2024
21-cv-1428-MMA-DDL (S.D. Cal. Jun. 26, 2024)
Case details for

Morton v. Cnty. of San Diego

Case Details

Full title:MARILYN MORTON, et al., Plaintiffs, v. COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, et al.…

Court:United States District Court, Southern District of California

Date published: Jun 26, 2024

Citations

21-cv-1428-MMA-DDL (S.D. Cal. Jun. 26, 2024)