Moreover, here, there is no evidence the prejudicial information has already been accessed by the public. Cf. e.g., Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1184 (information already publicly available via press release); Perez v. City of Fresno, 482 F.Supp.3d 1037, 1044 (E.D. Cal. 2020) (information already made public via news articles); Flores v. U.S. Immigr. & CustomsEnf''t, No. 18-05139, 2018 WL 5825314, at *3 (W.D. Wash. Nov. 7, 2018) (plaintiff provided evidence public had already accessed documents)
See also Perez v. City of Fresno, 482 F.Supp.3d 1037, 1048-49 (E.D. Cal. 2020) (citing In re Roman Cath. Archbishop of Portland in Oregon, 661 F.3d 417, 425 (9th Cir. 2011)) (denying request to blur non-party ambulance employees' faces in wrongful death lawsuit where (1) disclosure of bodycam footage was proper under a common law analysis and (2) the non-party employees were acting in a public capacity alongside the defendant police officers); Sampson v. City of El Centro, 2015 WL 11658713, at *7 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 31, 2015) (permitting release of bodycam footage, despite privacy interests weighing against disclosure, where non-parties' identities were redacted from the relevant videos and photographs). C.