Ballard v. Terros Incorporated

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Pamela Ballard, No. CV-19-05658-PHX-DWL

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 Terros Incorporated,

13 Defendant. 14 15 The parties have filed a stipulation to file Plaintiff’s medical records—exhibits to 16 Defendant’s motion for summary judgment—under seal. (Doc. 28.) However, the 17 parties have not lodged the subject documents under seal, as required by LRCiv 5.6. As 18 noted in the Court’s preliminary order, “[i]n all cases, the parties shall adhere to the 19 federal and local rules, including LRCiv 5.6, which details the local rules for sealing 20 court records.” (Doc. 9 at 4-5.) Pursuant to LRCiv 5.6(b), “[t]he document or documents 21 that are the subject of any [motion or stipulation to file a document under seal] . . . must 22 be lodged with the Court separately,” and LRCiv 5.6(c) provides instructions for lodging 23 under seal. 24 Furthermore, every motion to seal, including stipulations pursuant to LRCiv 25 5.6(d), must identify the legal standard applicable to the document at issue and explain 26 why the material sought to be sealed meets that standard. LRCiv 5.6(b). The public has 27 a general right to inspect judicial records and documents, such that a party seeking to seal 28 a judicial record must overcome “a strong presumption in favor of access.” Kamakana v. 1 City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). To do so, the party must 2 “articulate compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the 3 general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure . . . .” Id. at 1178-79 4 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). The Court must then “conscientiously 5 balance the competing interests of the public and the party who seeks to keep certain 6 judicial records secret.” Id. at 1179 (internal quotation marks omitted). “After 7 considering these interests, if the court decides to seal certain judicial records, it must 8 base its decision on a compelling reason and articulate the factual basis for its ruling, 9 without relying on hypothesis or conjecture.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). The 10 “stringent” compelling reasons standard applies to all filed motions and their attachments 11 where the motion is “more than tangentially related to the merits of a case.” Ctr. for Auto 12 Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096, 1101 (9th Cir. 2016). A motion for 13 summary judgment is clearly such a motion, and the “compelling reasons” standard 14 applies to the parties’ summary judgment motions and their exhibits. 15 Moreover, the Court will not seal a document in its entirety when only a portion of 16 the document contains material that satisfies the applicable legal standard for sealing. 17 Where a party seeks to seal only certain portions of a given document, the unredacted 18 version of the document, which should be lodged under seal pursuant to LRCiv 5.6(c), 19 must include highlighting to indicate which portions of the document the party seeks to 20 redact. 21 The more specific and compelling the reasons and facts provided are, the more 22 likely it is that the Court will find that compelling reasons justify sealing documents or 23 portions of documents. However, where a party puts certain information at issue, that 24 party’s ability to claim an interest in privacy is weakened. See, e.g., Weisberg v. Takeda 25 Pharm. U.S.A., Inc., 2018 WL 6252458, *2 (C.D. Cal. 2018) (“[A] patient-litigant has no 26 privilege as to communication relevant to an issue concerning the patient’s condition, if 27 the patient put that condition at issue.); Shapiro v. Hasbro Inc., 2016 WL 9137526, *3 28 (C.D. Cal. 2016) (“Hasbro put these documents at issue in the litigation and thus fails to [] make a particularized showing of compelling reason[s] to file these exhibits || under seal.”); B.F. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 2019 WL 4597492, *2 (W.D. Wash. 2019) (“By 3|| bringing this lawsuit against Defendants, [Plaintiffs] have put [information sought to be 4|| sealed] directly at issue, and cannot reasonably expect filings in this case not to include 5|| details about [that information].”); Longoria vy. Kodiak Concepts LLC, 2020 WL 6|| 4501456, *1 (D. Ariz. 2020) (“Plaintiffs cannot reasonably bring this action and then expect confidentiality ....”). But cf’ Cramton v. Grabbagreen Franchising LLC, 2019 8 || WL 1077869, *1 (D. Ariz. 2019) (“The medical records contain a great deal of sensitive 9|| and private information about [Plaintiff's] health, beyond just the information relevant to || the case. The public’s interest in knowing intimate details of Cramton’s health beyond the |} scope of this case is minimal, and Cramton’s interest in keeping them private is significant.). 13 Where, as here, Plaintiff has put her medical condition at issue in the complaint, the Court will not broadly grant leave to file all of Plaintiff's medical records under seal. 15 || If the parties choose to bring another motion seeking leave to file certain documents (or || portions of documents) under seal, the parties must demonstrate—for each document or 17 || portion of a document sought to be sealed—that the material is beyond the scope of what 18 || is at issue in this action. 19 Accordingly, 20 IT IS ORDERED that the parties’ stipulation (Doc. 28) is denied without prejudice. 22 Dated this 25th day of September, 2020. 23 f~ □□ 24 f : _o—— Dominic W. Lanza 95 United States District Judge 26 27 28

-3-