1 2

3

4

5

6

7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ESTATE OF GERARDO CRUZ- Case No.: 17-cv-00569-AJB-NLS 11 SANCHEZ, by and through his successor- 12 in-interest Paula Garcia Rivera, et al., ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’

MOTION TO SEAL

13 Plaintiffs,

v. 14 (Doc. No. 113)

15 THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., 16 Defendants. 17 18 19 Pending before the Court is a motion to seal filed by Defendants on October 9, 2018. 20 (Doc. No. 113.) Defendants’ motion requests the following document to be filed under 21 seal: 22 • Employment Education and Training Record (Exhibit 3 to Defendants’ Reply in 23 Support of Their Amended Motion for Summary Judgment) 24 Defendants contend the document contains proprietary and security sensitive documents 25 that memorialize CoreCivic security operations and procedures. (Doc. No. 113 at 2.) 26 Courts have historically recognized a “general right to inspect and copy public 27 records and documents, including judicial records and documents.” Nixon v. Warner 28 Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978). “Unless a particular court record is one 1 || ‘traditionally kept secret,’ a ‘strong presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.” 2 || Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Foltz 3 ||v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). In order to 4 || overcome this strong presumption, a party seeking to seal a judicial record must articulate 5 || compelling justifications for sealing that outweigh the public policies favoring disclosure. 6 || See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178-79. “In turn, the court must ‘conscientiously balance[] 7 ||the competing interests’ of the public and the party who seeks to keep certain judicial 8 ||records secret.” Jd. at 1179 (citation omitted). 9 After a careful examination of the document, the Court agrees with Defendants and 10 || finds that despite the generally recognized right to inspect records and documents in this 11 ||country, Defendants have overcome this strong presumption of access by providing 12 ||compelling reasons to seal. See Nixon, 435 U.S. at 597 & n.7; see also Pintos v. Pac. 13 || Creditors Ass ’n, 605 F.3d 665, 677—78 (9th Cir. 2010) (holding that a “compelling reasons 14 ||standard applies to most [motions to seal] judicial records.”) (internal quotation marks 15 || omitted). 16 Here, the document Defendants wish to seal includes information regarding 17 || CoreCivic’s security operations and procedures that if released publicly present safety and 18 || security concerns, would result in competitive harm to CoreCivic’s business interest, and 19 || would reveal how its detention officers are trained. (Doc. No. 113 at 2.) Accordingly, 20 ||balancing the need for the public’s access to information and Defendants’ interest in 21 || keeping this material private weighs strongly in favor of sealing. Thus, the Court GRANTS 22 || Defendants’ motion to seal. (Doc. No. 113); see Fosselman v. Evans, No. C 07-2606 PJH 23 ||(PR), 2011 WL 939616, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 15, 2011) (granting a motion to seal based 24 || on the finding that the documents would threaten the safety and security of the institution). 25 || IT ISSO ORDERED. 26 Dated: September 17, 2019

28 United States District Judge