Opinion
CIV. No. 2:14-02152 WBS-CMK
09-18-2015
JOSEPH ROSALES, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF CHICO; DAVID BAILEY; AND DOES 1 THROUGH 10 (in their official and/or capacities), Defendants.
ORDER
Plaintiff has submitted a request to seal Exhibits F and G to the Declaration of Darrell J. York of plaintiff's opposition to defendants' motion for summary judgment. (Am. Req. to Seal (Docket No. 15).) Defendants do not oppose the motion.
A party seeking to seal a judicial record bears the burden of overcoming a strong presumption in favor of public access. Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). The party must "articulate compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure, such as the public interest in understanding the judicial process." Id. at 1178-79 (citation omitted). In ruling on a motion to seal, notwithstanding the other parties' failure to object, the court must balance the competing interests of the public and the party or parties seeking to keep records secret. Id. at 1179.
Plaintiff offers little explanation for his request. He states that the documents should be sealed because they contain confidential information and are subject to a stipulated protective order signed by Magistrate Judge Kellison. (Id.; Stipulated Protective Order (Docket No. 10).) This court has previously pointed out that a confidentiality agreement between the parties does not per se constitute a compelling reason to seal documents that outweighs the interests of public disclosure and access. See Oct. 8, 2014 Order at 2, Starbucks Corp. v. Amcor Packaging Distrib., Civ. No. 2:13-1754 (E.D. Cal. 2014); Sept. 3, 2015 Order at 3, Foster Poultry Farms, Inc. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London, Civ. No. 1:14-00953 (E.D. Cal. 2015). The fact that the assigned magistrate judge signed the stipulated protective order does not change this principle.
Beyond the stipulated protective order, plaintiff asserts that there is "good cause" to seal but offers no further guidance as to why there is "good cause." (Am. Req. to Seal at 2.) These boilerplate concerns do not outweigh the history of access and public policies favoring disclosure to the public and the media. Especially here, where the case involves allegations of police misconduct, the public may have an interest in the case and the court must protect the public's right to access. The court has reviewed the documents which plaintiff asks to seal and finds no compelling reason to shield them from public scrutiny.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff's request to seal be, and the same hereby is, DENIED. Dated: September 18, 2015
/s/ _________
WILLIAM B. SHUBB
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE