Bencomo v. County of Sacramento — Entry #44: ORDER signed by District Judge Dale A
Case: Bencomo v. County of Sacramento caed · 2:23-cv-00440
filed March 09, 2023
What this document is
Docket entry #44 · filed May 16, 2024
ORDER signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 5/16/2024 GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART 42 Request to Seal. The clerk is DIRECTED to SEAL 22 Motion for Leave to Amend, 24 Opposition to Motion, 27 First Amended Complaint, and 29 Motion to Dismiss. Within 7 days from the date of this order, the parties are DIRECTED to file redacted versions of the documents identified in the order. (Woodson, A)
Who is involved
- Bencomo
- County of Sacramento
Why we have it
We follow this case because it names a company we track, although that company is not a party:
- Nebius: its former name “Yandex N.V.” appears in a filing in this case.
…order in that action.1 See Perfect 10, Inc. v. Yandex N.V., No. 12-cv-01521- 21 1 In his reply…
A free copy from the RECAP archive of federal court filings (mirrored at the Internet Archive), retrieved November 10, 2026. Federal court filings are public records.
Document text
6 page(s), 13,719 characters, converted from the PDF's text layer · plain text.
Full text
Case 2:23-cv-00440-DAD-JDP Document 44 Filed 05/16/24 Page 1 of 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 MANUEL BENCOMO, No. 2:23-cv-00440-DAD-JDP
12 Plaintiff,
13 v. ORDER GRANTING IN PART
DEFENDANTS’ REQUEST TO SEAL
14 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, et al.,
(Doc. No. 42)
15 Defendants.
16
17 This matter is before the court on defendants’ notice of request to seal certain documents
18 that have already been publicly filed on the docket in this action. (Doc. No. 42.) For the reasons
19 set forth below, defendants’ request to seal will be granted in part.
20 BACKGROUND
21 This case arises from an incident on January 8, 2023, involving the alleged excessive use
22 of force against plaintiff Manuel Bencomo by a police canine deployed by a law enforcement
23 officer. (Doc. No. 27.) On February 8, 2024, plaintiff filed his operative first amended complaint
24 (“FAC”). (Id.) In his FAC, plaintiff alleges that certain defendants have a policy and custom of
25 failing to discipline their subordinates. (Id. at ¶ 92.) In support of this allegation, plaintiff alleges
26 various examples of incidents where subordinates received “minimal, insignificant and untimely
27 discipline” for their misconduct. (Id.) Relevant here, three alleged incidents involve two non-
28 party deputies who were disciplined for improperly accessing files for personal reasons (id.
1
Case 2:23-cv-00440-DAD-JDP Document 44 Filed 05/16/24 Page 2 of 6
1 ¶¶ 92(t), 92(p)); sending inappropriate emails from a work-related email address (id. ¶ 92(p)); and
2 stalking (id. ¶ 92(o)).
3 On May 3, 2024, defendants filed a notice of request to seal, seeking to seal or redact
4 those specific subparagraphs of the FAC, arguing that they are “improper because they are
5 derived from confidential documents subject to a Protective Order.” (Doc. No. 42 at 2.)
6 Defendants also request to seal or redact the references made to these paragraphs contained in the
7 parties’ respective briefing on plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a first amended complaint (Doc.
8 No. 22, 24). (Id.)1 Consistent with Local Rule 141(b), defendants filed the request to seal in
9 camera. In their request to seal, defendants argue that the relevant subparagraphs of plaintiff’s
10 FAC “pertain to highly confidential, immaterial, scurrilous, and inflammatory matters that do not
11 involve facts bearing sufficient resemblance to the fact pattern at issue here to be pertinent, nor
12 show an essential or important relationship between the two bearing on the subject matter of the
13 litigation.” (Req. at 10.) Pursuant to Local Rule 141(c), plaintiff timely submitted an opposition
14 to defendants’ request, also in camera. (Opp’n.)
15 On May 6, 2024, defendants filed a notice of supplemental authority, pointing the court to
16 a decision in a similar case in the Eastern District of California, which addressed a request to seal
17 or redact identical allegations to those at issue here. (Doc. No. 43) (citing Liles v. Cnty. of
18 Sacramento, No. 2:24-cv-00416-KJM-CKD, 2024 WL 1971882 (E.D. Cal. May 3, 2024)). In the
19 Liles decision, the district court granted the defendants’ request to seal in part, finding no
20 compelling reasons to seal or redact the at-issue subparagraphs of the complaint in their entirety
21 but finding compelling reasons to redact the names of the third-party deputies in those
22 subparagraphs. See Liles, 2024 WL 1971882, at *2–3.
23 /////
24 /////
25 1
In their pending request, defendants also seek to seal or redact “any other documents filed with
26 the Court containing any of the information at subparagraphs 92(o), (p), and (t) of [p]laintiff’s
First Amended Complaint[.]” (Req. at 2.) Although defendants’ request to seal did not explicitly
27 mention their motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 29) as one of the documents to be sealed or redacted,
because the motion to dismiss also references the subparagraphs, the court will consider it as part
28 of defendants’ request.
2
Case 2:23-cv-00440-DAD-JDP Document 44 Filed 05/16/24 Page 3 of 6
1 LEGAL STANDARD
2 All documents filed with the court are presumptively public. San Jose Mercury News,
3 Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Court, 187 F.3d 1096, 1103 (9th Cir. 1999) (“It is well-established that the fruits
4 of pretrial discovery are, in the absence of a court order to the contrary, presumptively public.”).
5 “Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records and
6 documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu,
7 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589,
8 597 & n.7 (1978)).
9 Two standards generally govern requests to seal documents. Pintos v. Pac. Creditors
10 Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 677 (9th Cir. 2010). The standards used are based on the type of motion to
11 which the documents to be sealed are attached:
12 [W]e treat judicial records attached to dispositive motions differently
from records attached to non-dispositive motions. Those who seek
13 to maintain the secrecy of documents attached to dispositive motions
must meet the high threshold of showing that “compelling reasons”
14 support secrecy. A “good cause” showing under Rule 26(c) will
suffice to keep sealed records attached to non-dispositive motions.
15
16 Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1180 (citing Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122,
17 1135, 1136 (9th Cir. 2003)). The reason for these two different standards is that “[n]ondispositive
18 motions are often unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action, and, as
19 a result, the public’s interest in accessing dispositive materials does not apply with equal force to
20 non-dispositive materials.” Pintos, 605 F.3d at 678 (citations and internal quotation marks
21 omitted).
22 ANALYSIS
23 The parties dispute which standard applies to defendants’ request to seal and whether
24 defendants’ request to seal meets the applicable standard. Plaintiff argues that the “compelling
25 reasons” standard applies and asserts that no compelling reasons exist to seal the relevant portions
26 of the FAC. (Opp’n at 12–25.) In contrast, defendants contend that the “good cause” standard is
27 appropriate but argue that even under the “compelling reasons” standard, the subparagraphs
28 /////
3
Case 2:23-cv-00440-DAD-JDP Document 44 Filed 05/16/24 Page 4 of 6
1 92(o), (p), and (t) of plaintiff’s FAC should be sealed or redacted because they contain
2 confidential information which serve no other purpose but to humiliate the non-party deputies.
3 (Req. at 9–11.)
4 The court agrees with plaintiff that the “compelling reasons” standard applies here since
5 defendants seek to seal a portion of the FAC, the operative pleading in this case. See Liles, 2024
6 WL 1971882, at *1 (“[A] request to seal all or part of a complaint must clearly meet the
7 ‘compelling reasons’ standard.”) (citation omitted); see also Williams & Cochrane, LLP v.
8 Quechan Tribe of Fort Yuma Indian Rsrv., No. 3:17-cv-1436-GPC-MDD, 2017 WL 3600417, at
9 *2 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 17, 2017) (“[D]istrict courts generally conclude that the ‘compelling reasons’
10 standard applies because the complaint initiates the civil action.”) (collecting cases); PUMA SE v.
11 Brooks Sports, Inc., No. 2:23-cv-00116-LK, 2024 WL 1557660, at *2 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 10,
12 2024) (“Although the Ninth Circuit has not specified whether a party seeking to seal its operative
13 pleading must meet the ‘good cause’ or ‘compelling reasons’ standard, numerous courts within
14 the Circuit have held that the compelling reasons standard applies because a complaint is the
15 foundation of a lawsuit.”) (collecting cases).
16 Having reviewed the order issued by Chief Judge Mueller in Liles, the court concurs with
17 the analysis set forth therein and adopts that analysis by reference in this order. Like in Liles,
18 here, the court does not find compelling reasons to redact the pertinent subparagraphs of
19 plaintiff’s FAC entirely but does find compelling reasons to redact the names of the non-party
20 deputies in those subparagraphs. Since plaintiff’s alleged injuries stem from excessive force by a
21 police canine deployed by a law enforcement officer, the incidents involving the non-party
22 deputes in subparagraphs 92(o), (p), and (t) of the FAC are unrelated to the core issues of this
23 case. Therefore, identifying the deputies by name in those subparagraphs serves improper
24 purposes. See Liles, 2024 WL 1971882, at *2 (“Given the absence of a connection with the
25 factual allegations in this case and the third-party deputies’ non-involvement in this or related
26 matters, the court finds identifying these deputies by name at this point serves improper purposes,
27 including the potential promotion of public scandal.”).
28 /////
4
Case 2:23-cv-00440-DAD-JDP Document 44 Filed 05/16/24 Page 5 of 6
1 Accordingly, the court will grant defendants’ request to the extent that it seeks to redact
2 the names of the non-party deputies in subparagraphs 92(o), (p), and (t) of the FAC, and seeks to
3 redact the references to those names made in the parties’ briefing on plaintiff’s motion for leave
4 to file an amended complaint (Doc. No. 22, 24), and defendants’ pending motion to dismiss (Doc.
5 No. 29).
6 CONCLUSION
7 For the reasons explained above,
8 1. Defendants’ request to seal (Doc. No. 42) is granted in part, as follows:
9 a. The unredacted version of plaintiff’s motion for leave to file an amended
10 complaint (Doc. No. 22) is hereby sealed;
11 b. The unredacted version of defendants’ opposition to plaintiff’s motion for
12 leave to file an amended complaint (Doc. No. 24) is hereby sealed;
13 c. The unredacted version of plaintiff’s first amended complaint (Doc.
14 No. 27) is hereby sealed; and
15 d. The unredacted version of defendants’ pending motion to dismiss (Doc.
16 No. 29) is hereby sealed;
17 e. Within seven (7) days from the date of entry of this order:
18 i. Plaintiff shall file a redacted version of his motion for leave to file
19 an amended complaint and a redacted version of his first amended
20 complaint, redacting the names of the two non-party deputies
21 referenced in subparagraphs 92(o), (p), and (t); and
22 ii. Defendants shall file a redacted version of their opposition to
23 plaintiff’s motion for leave to file an amended complaint and a
24 redacted version of their pending motion to dismiss, redacting the
25 names of the two non-party deputies referenced in subparagraphs
26 92(o), (p), and (t) of the first amended complaint; and
27 f. Defendants’ request to seal is otherwise denied;
28 /////
5
Case 2:23-cv-00440-DAD-JDP Document 44 Filed 05/16/24 Page 6 of 6
1 2. The Clerk of Court is directed to update the docket to reflect that the following
2 documents have been sealed:
3 i. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file an amended complaint (Doc.
4 No. 22);
5 ii. Defendants’ opposition to plaintiff’s motion for leave to file an
6 amended complaint (Doc. No. 24);
7 iii. Plaintiff’s first amended complaint (Doc. No. 27); and
8 iv. Defendants’ pending motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 29).
9 IT IS SO ORDERED.
10
Dated: May 16, 2024
11 DALE A. DROZD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6