Burr v. Clark County

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 * * *

4 CHRISTOPHER BURR, Individually and as Case No. 2:20-cv-01101-JCM-EJY Adoptive Parent and Legal Guardian of L.B., a 5 Minor; and SUSAN HOY Guardian Ad Litem for L.B., a Minor, 6 ORDER Plaintiff, 7 v. 8 CLARK COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF 9 FAMILY SERVICES; COUNTY OF CLARK, a Political Subdivision of the State of Nevada; 10 HEATHER MUMMEY, individually, and in her official capacity; TIM BURCH, 11 individually, and in his official capacity; ROE CLARK COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF 12 FAMILY SERVICES EMPLOYEES I through X, individually and in their official capacities; 13 JONEL KAYE REPOLLO QUERRER, individually; DOES I through XX; and ROE 14 CORPORATIONS I through XX, inclusive,

15 Defendants.

16 17 Pending before the Court is Defendants County of Clark and Heather Mummey’s Motion for 18 Leave to File Exhibits Under Seal (ECF No. 111). Defendants seek leave to file Exhibits E and G 19 referenced in their Response to Plaintiffs’ Objection to Defendants’ Bill of Costs (ECF No. 110) 20 under seal. Defendants state these documents contain “portions of UMC Medical Records that are 21 HIPAA-protected and confidential.” Id. at 2. 22 As the party seeking to seal a judicial record Defendants must meet their burden of 23 overcoming the strong presumption in favor of access and public policies favoring disclosure. 24 Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178–79 (9th Cir. 2006) (holding that 25 those who seek to maintain the secrecy of documents attached to dispositive motions must meet the 26 high threshold of showing that “compelling reasons” support secrecy). Where a party seeks to seal 27 documents attached to a non-dispositive motion, the “public policies that support the right of access 28 to dispositive motions … do not apply with equal force … .” Id. at 1179 (citation omitted). 1 Importantly, medical privacy meets the compelling reason standard. See, e.g., San Ramon 2 Regional Med. Ctr., Inc. v. Principal Life Ins. Co., 2011 WL89931, at *n. 1 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 10, 3 2011); Abbey v. Hawaii Employers Mut. Ins. Co., 2010 WL4715793, at *1–2 (D.HI. Nov. 15, 2010); 4 G. v. Hawaii, 2010 WL 267483, at *1–2 (D. HI. June 25, 2010); Wilkins v. Ahern, 2010 WL3755654 5 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 24, 2010); Lombardi v. Tri West Healthcare Alliance Corp., 2009 WL 1212170, at 6 *1 (D. Ariz. May 4, 2009); Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1136 (9th Cir. 7 2003). The Court considered the Motion and the documents sought to be sealed, which are medical 8 records. The Court therefore finds Exhibits E and G are properly sealed. 9 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants County of Clark and Heather 10 Mummey’s Motion for Leave to File Exhibits Under Seal (ECF No. 111) is GRANTED. 11 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Exhibits E and G (ECF No. 112) are and shall remain 12 sealed. 13 DATED this 11th day of October, 2023. 14

15 ELAYNA J. YOUCHAH 16 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27