ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL, Docket No. 69.

CLAUDIA WILKEN, District Judge

Plaintiff moves to file under seal, pursuant to this Court's Local Rules 79-5(c) and (d), portions of his brief in opposition to Defendants' motion for summary judgment and portions of Exhibit Four to his opposition. Docket No. 69. Defendants' counsel Kevin P. Allen submitted a declaration in support of sealing certain pages of Exhibit Four. The Court grants in part and denies in part the motion to seal portions of Exhibit Four. In addition, the Court approves Plaintiff's proposed redactions to his opposition brief to the extent consistent with this Court's order regarding Exhibit Four.

The Ninth Circuit has held that where a party seeks to file under seal documents as part of a dispositive motion, the moving party must demonstrate compelling reasons to seal the documents. Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178-79 (9th Cir. 2006). In general, when "`court files might have become the a vehicle for improper purposes' such as the use of records to gratify private spite, promote public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets," there are "compelling reasons" sufficient to outweigh the public's interest in disclosure. Id. at 1179. "The party requesting the sealing order 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 (internal citations and alterations omitted). "In turn, the court must conscientiously balance the competing interests of the public and the party who seeks to keep certain judicial records secret." Id. at 1179 (internal citations and alterations omitted). "The mere fact that the production of records may lead to a litigant's embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will not, without more, compel the court to seal its records." Id. (citing Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1136 (9th Cir. 2003)).

The Ninth Circuit has held that there are compelling reasons to seal the home addresses and social security numbers of law enforcement officers. Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1182 (affirming magistrate judge's decision to seal such information to avoid "expos[ing] the officers and their families to harm or identity theft). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2 states,

Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2.

Pursuant to the standard described above, the Court considers the documents that Plaintiff and Defendants seek to seal. Defendants request that the Court seal documents Bates-stamped D-001336, D-001337, D-001374 and D-001375. Documents D-001374 and D-001375 consist of a two page "Citizen's Personnel Complaint" lodged against Officer Carl Miller, and include the names of the complainant and a witness, as well as the complainant's statement describing the incident, date of birth and personal contact information. Document D-001336 consists of the second page of a different Citizen's Personnel Complaint lodged against Miller and a non-defendant Clearlake Police Department sergeant. Like document D-001375, it contains the complainant's name, date of birth and personal contact information. It appears that Defendants intended to request that the Court seal the two page complaint against Miller and the sergeant but, instead of requesting that the Court seal documents D-001335 and D-001336, they sought to seal documents D-001336 and Document D-001337, the latter of which is not part of the complaint form. The Court deems Defendants' request as one seeking to seal documents D-001335 and D-001336.

Defendants assert that under Kamakana the documents are sealable because they are libelous and serve only to promote scandal. Defendants state that one incident was deemed "unfounded" and the other "unfounded/not substantiated," as evidenced by the document Bates-stamped D-01370. Document D-01370, however, was not attached to Allen's declaration and was not included in Exhibit Four. Nevertheless, Plaintiff did not argue in his opposition or elsewhere that any investigation found that these complaints had merit or were substantiated to any degree. Thus, the documents simply indicate the fact that the complaints were made. Without more, Miller's privacy interest in his personnel information outweighs the public's interest in disclosure. Accordingly, both two-page complaint forms, Bates-stamped D-001335, D-001336, D-001374 and D-001375 are sealable.

Defendants request that the Court seal documents Bates-stamped D-001337 through D-001343. These documents contain personal identifying information for the individual who submitted the above-mentioned complaints, as well as forms related to the complainant's arrest, booking and intake. These documents are not relevant to resolving Defendants' motion for summary judgment, and contain personal identity and contact information, as well as arrest information about a non-litigant that will likely cause him embarrassment. Although Kamakana stated that the embarrassment of a litigant, alone, was not sufficient to justify a sealing order, the arrest records pertain to a non-litigant. Together these three factors—irrelevance, personal identification information and likely embarrassing information about the arrest of a non-litigant—outweigh the public's interest in disclosure. Accordingly, the request to seal documents Bates-stamped D-001337 through D-001343 is granted.

Defendants request that the Court seal documents Bates-stamped D-001403 through D-001411. These documents pertain to an Internal Affairs investigation into a complaint lodged against Miller and a non-defendant related to a party that Miller hosted at his home and include personal identifying information regarding the complainant. The investigator assigned to review the complaint concluded that it was unfounded. The documents are not probative of Plaintiff's claims. The fact that the documents contain Miller's private personnel information regarding an unfounded complaint, and the complainant's personal identification and contact information, and are irrelevant to resolving Defendants' motion for summary judgment demonstrate that there is a compelling interest in sealing the documents, which outweighs the public's interest in disclosure. Therefore, documents D-001403 through D-001411 are sealable.

Defendants request that the Court seal documents Bates-stamped D-001424 through D-1433, concerning an Internal Affairs investigation regarding Miller's failure to follow CPD policies related to confidentiality. The Court determined that these incidents were not probative of Plaintiff's claims. Although Miller was reprimanded based on the investigation, the private nature of the documents and their irrelevance outweigh the public's interest in their disclosure and they may be sealed.

Defendants request to seal personal identification and contact information contained in documents Bates-stamped D-001507 through D-001516. These documents pertain to an October 2, 2006 felony arrest of a purportedly mentally ill individual. During the incident the individual exchanged gunfire with Miller and another officer and evaded attempts to remove him from a house. Defendants concede that documents D-001507 through D-001516 include significant identifying information for individuals who are not parties to this action, but were contacted in connection with the felony arrest. The identification information regarding the arrestee, a non-litigant, is also likely to cause him embarrassment. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52 and Kamakana, the names, address, telephone numbers, dates of birth and ages for the non-party individuals shall be redacted from documents D-001507 through D-001516.

Defendants request to seal documents Bates-stamped D-001517 through D-001533. These documents consist of print-outs from Miller's Facebook wall. For the reasons explained in this Court's July 6, 2012 order, Docket No. 79, Defendants' request to seal these pages is denied. Defendants further argue that some postings are by individuals other than Miller. However, there is no indication that such individuals had an expectation of privacy in such communications. Although the Court found that the postings were not probative of Plaintiff's claims, the standard for sealing documents submitted in connection with a motion for summary judgment is the compelling interest standard, in which relevance is not a dispositive factor. Defendants argue that the only purpose of submitting the postings is to serve private spite. However, their submission was consistent with Plaintiff's efforts to demonstrate that Miller was a rogue officer in a department that broadly condoned such behavior within its ranks. The postings concerning parties and drinking may be embarrassing, but apparently not enough to persuade Miller not to post them or to remove them. Under Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179, the prevention of public embarrassment of a litigant alone is not sufficient to justify a sealing order.

Defendants ask to seal documents Bates-stamped D-001607 through D-001616, which consist of a cover sheet and report from a background investigation of Miller in connection with his application for employment with the CPD. On July 6, 2012, the Court found that Miller had a privacy interest in information contained his personnel file, including that which refers to incidents that occurred decades ago and contains personal identification and contact information. As noted earlier, the lack of relevance of the sensitive information is not dispositive as to whether a sealing order is warranted, but underscores the privacy interest in sealing such information. After balancing Miller's privacy interest against the public's interest, the Court approved redactions from Defendants' reply brief in support of the motion for summary judgment.

Documents D-001607 through D-001616 underlie the redactions approved for Defendants' reply brief. Consistent with the Court's July 6, 2012 order, Defendants' request to seal documents D-001607 through D-01616 is granted. In addition, the Court grants Defendants' request to seal documents Bates-stamped D-001631 through D-001633, D-001636, D-001637, D-001642 through D-001644, D-001669 through D-001677, D-001693 through D-001695,1 D-001702 through D-001705 and D-001708 through D-001724 because they provide Miller's personal history submitted in connection with his employment application, including the names and contact information for various non-party relatives and former employers, and serve as the basis for portions of the report concerning his background investigation. The lack of probative value of these documents and their private nature outweigh the public's interest in disclosure. Defendants do not request to seal document D-001606, but Miller's driver's license number shall be redacted.

Defendants request that the Court seal documents Bates-stamped D-001759 through D-001763 because they concern an incident that led the CPD to release Miller from his position as a training officer. Because, in this instance, Miller violated CPD policies that did not bear any relation to Plaintiff's claims and the CPD reprimanded Miller, the documents are not relevant to establish any of Plaintiff's claims that were the subject of Defendants' summary judgment motion. Miller's privacy interest and the irrelevance of the documents sufficiently outweigh the public's interest in disclosure so as to satisfy the compelling interest standard. Thus, Defendants' request to seal documents D-001759 through D-001763 is granted.

Defendants' request to redact the address information for a non-party witness included in document D-001776 is granted.

Defendants ask that the Court seal the names of officers contained in document D-001786 pursuant to Dowell v. Griffin, 275 F.R.D. 613 (S.D. Cal. 2011). The document consists of a log of CPD officers who watched a P.O.S.T. training video concerning ethics. Dowell addresses discovery disputes in a § 1983 case alleging an unconstitutional search of a plaintiff's person and prison cell. Apart from noting the privacy interests and privilege associated with official information, which Defendants apparently did not assert in disclosing document D-001786, Dowell is not relevant to the present motion to seal. Document D-001776 does not warrant sealing under the compelling interest test. Plaintiff's lawsuit included a Monell claim against the City for failure to provide adequate training to its officers. While not highly probative of CPD practices at issue in this case, Defendants have not asserted any privacy interest sufficient to outweigh the presumption in favor of disclosure. Defendants' request to seal document D-001786 is denied.

Defendants ask to seal documents Bates-stamped D-002055 and D-002057, which pertain to Defendant Michael Ray's appointment as a CPD officer. Under Kamakana, Ray's personal address, identification information and birthdate are private, as well as the information concerning his pay, including his pay plan and step. Accordingly, Plaintiff shall file documents D-002055 and D-002057 with the redactions necessary to protect such information.

Defendants ask to seal documents Bates-stamped D-002069, D-002070, D-002074 through D-002088,2 D-002090 through D-002101, D-002103 and D-002105 through D-002108. These documents pertain to Ray's application for employment with the CPD and include forms containing personal identification and contact information for Ray, his references and relatives, as well as background information about his prior experience, education, military service and employment. Given the highly personal nature of this information and its lack of probative value with respect to Plaintiff's claims, the public has relatively little interest in access to these documents as compared to Ray's privacy interests. Accordingly, Defendants have demonstrated a compelling interest in sealing these documents and their request is granted.

Defendants ask to seal documents Bates-stamped D-002166 through D-002168. These documents relate to Ray's pre-employment polygraph examination and interview for the position of CPD officer trainee. Plaintiff failed to point to any evidence connecting Ray's pre-employment conduct and the incident at issue in this lawsuit. Given the lack of relevance of these documents and their highly personal, sensitive nature, Ray's privacy interest in preventing their disclosure significantly outweighs the public's interest in the information. Defendants' request to seal documents D-002166 through D-002168 is granted.

CONCLUSION

Plaintiff shall file a redacted version of Exhibit Four in support of his opposition brief, excluding the following documents: D-001335, D-001336, D-001374, D-001375, D-001337 through D-001343, D-001403 through D-001411, D-001424 through D-001433, D-001607 through D-01616, D-001631 through D-001633, D-001636, D-001637, D-001642 through D-001644, D-001669 through D-001677, D-001693 through D-001695, D-001702 through D-001705, D-001708 through D-001724, D-001759 through D-001763, D-002069, D-002070, D-002074 through D-002088, D-002090 through D-002101, D-002103, D-002105 through D-002108, and D-002166 through D-002168. In addition, the names, address, telephone numbers, dates of birth and ages for non-party individuals in documents D-001507 through D-001516, Miller's driver's license number in document D-001606, the address information contained in document D-001776, and Ray's personal identification, address and financial information contained in documents D-002055 and D-002057 shall be redacted.

Plaintiff shall file the redacted exhibit and opposition brief within five days. He shall also file the unredacted exhibit and opposition under seal. Instructions for electronically filing documents under seal are provided on this Court's website at https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cand/faq/under_seal.htm.

IT IS SO ORDERED.