Caballero v. Aranas

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6

7 EMANUEL CABALLERO, Case No. 3:19-CV-0079-MMD-CLB

8 Plaintiff, ORDER

9 v.

10 ROMEO ARANAS, et al.,

11 Defendants. 12 _

___________________________/ 13 Before the court is defendants’ motion for leave to file medical records under seal 14 in support of defendants’ opposition to motion for preliminary injunction. (ECF No. 41). 15 “Historically, courts have recognized a general right to inspect and copy public 16 records and documents, including judicial records and documents.” See Kamakana v. 17 City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation 18 marks and citation omitted). “‘Throughout our history, the open courtroom has been a 19 fundamental feature of the American judicial system. Basic principles have emerged to 20 guide judicial discretion respecting public access to judicial proceedings. These principles 21 apply as well to the determination of whether to permit access to information contained in 22 court documents because court records often provide important, sometimes the only, 23 bases or explanations for a court’s decision.’” Oliner v. Kontrabecki, 745 F.3d 1024, 1025 24 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. F.T.C., 710 F.2d 1165, 25 1177 (6th Cir. 1983)). 26 Documents that have been traditionally kept secret, including grand jury transcripts 27 and warrant materials in a pre-indictment investigation, come within an exception to the 28 general right of public access. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178. Otherwise, “a strong 1 presumption in favor of access is the starting point.” Id. (internal quotation marks and 2 citation omitted). “The presumption of access is ‘based on the need for federal courts, 3 although independent—indeed, particularly because they are independent—to have a 4 measure of accountability and for the public to have confidence in the administration of 5 justice.’” Center for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Group, LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 6 2016), cert. denied, 137 S.Ct. 38 (Oct. 3, 2016) (quoting United States v. Amodeo 7 (Amodeo II), 71 F.3d 1044, 1048 (2nd Cir. 1995); Valley Broad Co. v. U.S. Dist. Court-D. 8 Nev., 798 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1986)). 9 There are two possible standards a party must address when it seeks to file a 10 document under seal: the compelling reasons standard or the good cause standard. See 11 Center for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1096-97. Under the compelling reasons standard, “a 12 court may seal records only when it finds ‘a compelling reason and articulate[s] the factual 13 basis for its ruling, without relying on hypothesis or conjecture.” Id. (quoting Kamakana, 14 447 F.3d at 1179). “The court must then ‘conscientiously balance[ ] the competing 15 interests of the public and the party who seeks to keep certain judicial records secret.” Id. 16 “What constitutes a ‘compelling reason’ is ‘best left to the sound discretion of the trial 17 court.’” Id. (quoting Nixon v. Warner Comm., Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 599 (1978)). “Examples 18 include when a court record might be used to ‘gratify private spite or promote public 19 scandal,’ to circulate ‘libelous’ statements, or ‘as sources of business information that 20 might harm a litigant’s competitive standing.’” Id. (quoting Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598-99). 21 Center for Auto Safety described the good cause standard, on the other hand, as 22 the exception to public access that had been applied to “sealed materials attached to a 23 discovery motion unrelated to the merits of a case.” Id. (citing Phillips ex rel. Estates of 24 Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1213-14 (9th Cir. 2002)). “The ‘good cause 25 language comes from Rule 26(c)(1), which governs the issuance of protective orders in 26 the discovery process: ‘The court may, for good cause, issue an order to protect a party 27 or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense.” 28 Id. (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)). 1 2 The Ninth Circuit has clarified that the key in determining which standard to apply 3 in assessing a motion for leave to file a document under seal is whether the documents 4 proposed for sealing accompany a motion that is “more than tangentially related to the 5 merits of a case.” Center for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1101. If that is the case, the 6 compelling reasons standard is applied. If not, the good cause standard is applied. 7 Here, defendants seek to file exhibits under seal in connection with their opposition 8 to motion for preliminary injunction (ECF No. 40) which is unquestionably “more than 9 tangentially related to the merits of a case.” Therefore, the compelling reasons standard 10 applies. 11 This court, and others within the Ninth Circuit, have recognized that the need to 12 protect medical privacy qualifies as a “compelling reason” for sealing records. See, e.g., 13 San Ramon Regional Med. Ctr., Inc. v. Principal Life Ins. Co., 2011 WL89931, at *n.1 14 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 10, 2011); Abbey v. Hawaii Employers Mut. Ins. Co., 2010 WL4715793, 15 at * 1-2 (D. HI. Nov. 15, 2010); G. v. Hawaii, 2010 WL 267483, at *1-2 (D.HI. June 25, 16 2010); Wilkins v. Ahern, 2010 WL3755654 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 24, 2010); Lombardi v. 17 TriWest Healthcare Alliance Corp., 2009 WL 1212170, at * 1 (D.Ariz. May 4, 2009). This 18 is because a person’s medical records contain sensitive and private information about 19 their health. While a plaintiff puts certain aspects of his medical condition at issue when 20 he files an action alleging deliberate indifference to a serious medical need under the 21 Eighth Amendment, that does not mean that the entirety of his medical records filed in 22 connection with a motion (which frequently contain records that pertain to unrelated 23 medical information) need be unnecessarily broadcast to the public. In other words, the 24 plaintiff’s interest in keeping his sensitive health information confidential outweighs the 25 public’s need for direct access to the medical records. 26 Here, the referenced exhibits contain plaintiff’s sensitive health information, 27 medical history, and treatment records. Balancing the need for the public’s access to 28 information regarding plaintiff’s medical history, treatment, and condition against the need 2 3 | maintain the confidentiality of plaintiff's medical records weighs in favor of sealing these 4| exhibits. Therefore, defendants’ motion to seal (ECF No. 41) is GRANTED. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 DATED: September 1, 2020 *

3 UNITED STA MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-4-