Bai v. Johnson

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: February 15, 2022
• Docket: 2:20-cv-02192
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 * * *

4 XIAO YE BAI, Case No. 2:20-cv-02192-RFB-EJY

5 Plaintiff,

6 v. ORDER

7 CALVIN JOHNSON, et al.,

8 Defendants.

9 10 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to File Exhibit B Under Seal.1 Plaintiff 11 seeks to seal several declarations attached as Exhibit B to his Reply to the Motion for Preliminary 12 Injunction. ECF No. 37. Plaintiff states that the “exhibit contains NDOC Staffs’ personal 13 information and correspondence, including Plaintiff’s relevant medical condition.” Id. at 2. 14 As the party seeking to seal a judicial record, Plaintiff must meet his burden of overcoming 15 the strong presumption in favor of access and public policies favoring disclosure. Kamakana v. 16 City and Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178-79 (9th Cir. 2006) (holding that those who seek 17 to maintain the secrecy of documents attached to dispositive motions must meet the high threshold 18 of showing that “compelling reasons” support secrecy). “Many courts have applied the compelling 19 reasons standard to ... temporary restraining orders” and motions seeking preliminary injunctive 20 relief. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Group, LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096 n.2 (9th Cir. 2016) 21 (collecting cases); see also Selling Source, LLC v. Red River Ventures, LLC, Case No. 2:09-cv- 22 01491-JCM-GWF, 2011 WL 1630338, at *5 (finding requests for preliminary injunctive relief 23 should be treated as dispositive motions for purposes of sealing court records) (D. Nev. Apr. 29, 24 2011). Compelling reasons for maintaining secrecy of records filed with the Court requires 25 demonstration that the publicly filed document has the potential to become a vehicle for improper 26 purposes, including use of records to gratify private spite, promote public scandal, disseminate 27 libelous statements, or circulate trade secrets. Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, 435 U.S. 589, 598 28 1 (1978). Importantly, medical privacy also meets the compelling reason standard. See, e.g., San 2 Ramon Regional Med. Ctr., Inc. v. Principal Life Ins. Co., 2011 WL89931, at *n. 1 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 3 10, 2011); Abbey v. Hawaii Employers Mut. Ins. Co., 2010 WL4715793, at *1–2 (D.HI. Nov. 15, 4 2010); G. v. Hawaii, 2010 WL 267483, at *1–2 (D. HI. June 25, 2010); Wilkins v. Ahern, 2010 5 WL3755654 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 24, 2010); Lombardi v. Tri West Healthcare Alliance Corp., 2009 6 WL 1212170, at *1 (D. Ariz. May 4, 2009). Based on the foregoing and compelling reasons 7 appearing, 8 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to File Exhibit B Under Seal (ECF No. 9 37) is GRANTED. 10 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Declarations of NDOC Staffs shall remain sealed.

12 DATED THIS 15th day of February, 2022. 13 14

15 ELAYNA J. YOUCHAH UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 16

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28