Opinion
Case No. 1:13-cv-01682-BAM
02-22-2016
YOUSSEF SHAPOUR, Plaintiff, v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Department of Transportation, Defendant.
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO SEAL EXHIBITS A-E IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER TO PREVENT PLAINTIFF FROM CALLING MALCOLM DOUGHERTY AT TRIAL
(Doc. 57)
On January 27, 2016, Defendant State of California, Department of Transportation ("Defendant") filed a motion for protective order to prevent Plaintiff from calling Director Malcom Dougherty at trial. (Doc. 53). On January 29, 2016, Defendant filed the instant ex parte request to seal exhibits A-E in support of the motion for protective order. (Doc. 57).
A party seeking to seal "private materials unearthed during discovery," or to maintain the sealing of such materials when attached to non-dispositive motions, need only demonstrate "good cause" to justify sealing. Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass'n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010); Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c).
Defendant identifies the exhibits as follows:
Exhibit A is an e-mail from Plaintiff which discloses personnel information about his erstwhile colleagues, including that some were named as respondents in EEO Complaints. Exhibit B is an e-mail intended to begin a meet and confer process which identifies disciplinary actions taken against the Plaintiff. Exhibit C is a
Notice of Corrective Action sent from the Plaintiff's district to the Equal Employment Opportunity Program in Sacramento. Exhibit D is a notice of case closure that identifies not only Plaintiff, but two other respondents who are not parties to the instant suit. Exhibit E is a Letter of Warning that was issued to Plaintiff.Doc. 57 at 2. Defendant contends that these exhibits should be sealed to protect the privacy rights of individuals in their personnel records and employment history. Plaintiff has not objected to the sealing of these records.
The Court has conducted an in camera review of the documents to determine if the information is of a nature that clearly would require the court to maintain confidentiality. "Federal courts have recognized the privacy protection accorded to a person's personnel records and employment information under the California Constitution." Newman v. San Joaquin Delta Community Coll. Dist., No. 2:09-cv-03441 WBS-KJN, 2011 WL 1743686, at * 3 n. 6 (E.D. Cal. May 6, 2011); see also Estate of Elkins v. California Highway Patrol, No. 1:13-cv-01483-AWI-SAB, 2015 WL 6707597, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 3, 2015) (finding that some weight should be given to the privacy rights protected by state constitutions and statutes). In this instance, the exhibits at issue contain confidential personnel and employment information related not only to Plaintiff, but also to non-parties. Defendant has therefore established good cause for sealing.
Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Defendant's ex parte application to seal exhibits A-E in support of the motion for protective order is GRANTED.IT IS SO ORDERED.
2. The documents shall remain under seal until they are ordered unsealed by the Court; and
3. Defendant shall submit the documents for filing under seal in accordance with Local Rule 141.
Dated: February 22 , 2016
/s/ Barbara A . McAuliffe
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE