Randy Conan v. City of Fontana
5:16-cv-01261
C.D. Cal.May 24, 2017Background
- Plaintiffs Randy and Xylina Conan sued the City of Fontana and several officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging excessive force, denial of medical care, municipal liability, battery, negligence, and loss of consortium arising from an August 30, 2015 incident.
- Officer Joshua Patty’s body-worn camera captured footage of the incident; additional surveillance footage from the bar also exists.
- The parties agreed to and the court entered a Protective Order designating discovery (including video) confidential based on asserted government and third‑party privacy interests.
- Plaintiffs moved to unseal the body camera footage and make it public, asserting potential use in opposition to summary judgment and for a spoliation motion.
- Defendants opposed, relying on the Protective Order and privacy/government interests; both parties already had access to the footage.
- The court denied the motion without prejudice, concluding the Protective Order was valid, no proper purpose for public release was shown at this time, both parties already had the footage, and disclosure could harm third‑party privacy interests.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the body‑camera footage should be unsealed | Conan: footage should be public and usable in opposition to dispositive motions and for spoliation claims | Defs: footage remains confidential under the Protective Order to protect government and third‑party privacy interests | Denied without prejudice: Protective Order stands; no present showing to unseal |
| Whether party agreement to a protective order can justify sealing | Conan: did not directly challenge validity; sought release despite prior stipulation | Defs: parties stipulated good cause for confidentiality; order is valid | Court found the parties’ stipulation created good cause supporting confidentiality |
| Whether public access is favored because litigation is public | Conan: presumption of access to judicial records supports unsealing | Defs: footage is discovery, not a dispositive judicial record; privacy interests and protective order limit access | Court applied Rule 26(c) good‑cause standard and found privacy and other factors outweigh public access now |
| Whether third‑party privacy concerns warrant continued sealing | Conan: public interest and case use outweigh privacy | Defs: footage contains third‑party images/voices implicating privacy | Court found particularized third‑party privacy harms and denied unsealing |
Key Cases Cited
- Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20 (1984) (discovery may be limited to protect privacy/interests)
- San Jose Mercury News, Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Court—N. Dist. (San Jose), 187 F.3d 1096 (9th Cir. 1999) (Rule 26 protective orders can shield discovery from public)
- Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2006) (strong presumption of access applies to dispositive judicial records)
- In re Roman Catholic Archbishop of Portland in Oregon, 661 F.3d 417 (9th Cir. 2011) (party opposing disclosure bears burden to show good cause)
- Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206 (9th Cir. 2002) (movant must show specific prejudice to establish good cause for a protective order)