ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' REQUEST TO SEAL DOCUMENTS (LOCAL RULE 141)

WILLIAM B. SHUBB, District Judge.

The Court has considered Defendants CITY OF TRACY and R. LEON CHURCHILL, JR.'s ("Defendants") Request to Seal Documents submitted to the Court on April 16, 2018. This Court finds compelling reasons for the request and GRANTS the Request.

Defendants seek to seal or redact material from 194 pages of their evidence submitted in support of their Motion for Summary Judgment. Defendants contend certain documents contain sensitive and private non-litigant identifying information that should be redacted to protect the identities of the non-litigants since such information could be used for improper purposes.

"In this circuit, we start with a strong presumption in favor of access to court records. The common law right of access, however, is not absolute and can be overridden given sufficiently compelling reasons for doing so." Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003) (citations omitted) (discussing factors relevant to "compelling reasons" standard).

Defendants have demonstrated compelling reasons to seal or to redact the documents bates numbered CONFIDENTIAL0001-CONFIDENTIAL0194.

The documents contain personal identifying information of several third parties. The Court finds compelling reasons to permit Defendants to redact all non-litigant identifying information. The identities of these non-litigant individuals are immaterial to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. Given that such information lacks any probative value, it cannot further the "public interest in understanding the judicial process." Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1181 (9th Cir. 2006). Moreover, the dissemination of the non-litigants' identities in the public docket may cause them undue embarrassment or damage to their reputations. If disseminated in the public docket, the information may "`become a vehicle for improper purposes." Id. at 1179 (quoting Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978)). These interests in favor of redaction outweigh any public interest in the information. Pryor v. City of Clearlake, C 11-0954 CW, 2012 WL 3276992, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 9, 2012) ("Together these three factors—irrelevance, personal identification information and likely embarrassing information about . . . a non-litigant—outweigh the public's interest in disclosure.")

IT IS hereby ORDERED that Defendants may file the documents bates stamped CONFIDENTIAL0001-CONFIDENTIAL0194 under seal and/or may redact the personal identifying information of non-litigants wherever it appears in the documents bates stamped CONFIDENTIAL0001-CONFIDENTIAL0194. Persons entitled to access the confidential documents filed under seal is limited to Plaintiff, Plaintiff's counsel, Defendants, and Defendants' counsel, officers and employees of the Court, and individuals who have signed the Stipulated Protective Order. (ECF No. 58)

The sealing order shall remain in place for purposes of Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. Depositions, as lodged with the court, shall be returned to Defendants, through their counsel. This Order shall not preclude Defendants from introducing these documents, unredacted or unsealed, separately for purposes of trial.

IT IS SO ORDERED.