Carmel Unified School District v. Hodges

Opinion

CARMEL UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, Case No. 23-cv-00856-PCP

Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING JOINT v. ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO LODGE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD ASHLEY HODGES, et al., UNDER SEAL Defendants. Re: Dkt. No. 42

Before the Court is a joint administrative motion to lodge the administrative record under seal. This action arises under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. Pursuant to that statute, Carmel Unified School District appeals a decision of the Office of Administrative Hearings. On November 28, 2023, the parties filed this joint motion, arguing that the underlying administrative record totaling over 3,800 pages is “replete with personally identifiable educational and health information of the minor student, D.H.” Dkt. No. 42, at 2. For the following reasons, the Court grants the motion to lodge the administrative record under seal. Courts have historically recognized the “general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and documents.” Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). “Unless a particular court record is one ‘traditionally kept secret,’ a ‘strong presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.” Id. (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). Courts “treat judicial records Those who seek to maintain the secrecy of documents attached to dispositive motions must meet the high threshold of showing that ‘compelling reasons’ support secrecy. A ‘good cause’ showing under Rule 26(c) will suffice to keep sealed records attached to non-dispositive motions.” Id. at 1180. The Ninth Circuit recognizes that “the public has less of a need for access to court records attached only to non-dispositive motions because those documents are often unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action.” Id. at 1179 (cleaned up). A “‘compelling reasons’ standard applies to most judicial records.” Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass'n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010). The party seeking to seal must “articulate [] compelling reasons supported by specific findings.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178. “In general, ‘compelling reasons’ sufficient to outweigh the public's interest in disclosure and justify sealing court records exist when such ‘court files might have become a vehicle for improper purposes,’ such as the use of records to gratify private spite, promote public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets.” Id. at 1179. Courts must “conscientiously balance” the public and private interests at stake and “base its decision on a compelling reason and articulate the factual basis for its ruling, without relying on hypothesis or conjecture.” Id. (quoting Hagestad v. Tragesser, 49 F.3d 1430, 1434 (9th Cir. 1995)). Because the entire administrative record is more than tangentially related to the underlying action, the Court applies the “compelling reasons” standard here. The parties argue that compelling reasons exist to seal the entire administrative record, as it contains the minor’s “pupil records, medical records, and private and confidential information regarding D.H., including personally identifiable pupil information.” Dkt. No. 42, at 2. They argue that redaction is not an appropriate means by which to protect this information because of the nature and volume of sensitive information contained therein. Id. In support, the parties emphasize that the information contained in these records is generally protected from disclosure under the Family Educational Rights Privacy Act (FERPA), 20 U.S.C. § 1232g; 34 C.F.R. § 300.623; and the California Education Code, Cal. Ed. Code. § 49076. Id. 1 record under seal. Courts have routinely found that the private interest in maintaining the 2 confidentiality of such records is sufficient to outweigh the public’s interest in access. See, e.g., 3 Bruce v. Azar, 389 F. Supp. 3d 716, 727 (N.D. Cal. 2019), aff'd, 826 F. App’x 643 (9th Cir. 2020) 4 (“The Court finds that DHHS has shown a compelling interest in sealing the entire administrative 5 record, as it contains Plaintiff's medical records and private information.”); A.B. ex rel. W.F.B. v. 6 San Francisco Unified Sch. Dist., No. C 07-4738 PJH, 2007 WL 2900527, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 2, 7 2007) (granting a motion to seal an administrative record containing a minor’s “sensitive 8 educational and medication information”); A.C. v. City of Santa Clara, No. 13-CV-03276-HSG, 9 2015 WL 4076364, at *2 (N.D. Cal. July 2, 2015) (finding that “compelling confidentiality 10 concerns outweigh the presumption of public access” to a minor’s medical records and juvenile 11 court records); San Ramon Reg’l Med. Ctr., Inc. v. Principal Life Ins. Co., No. C 10-02258 SBA, 12 2011 WL 89931, at *1 n.1 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 10, 2011) (sealing records sua sponte upon finding that 13 “the need to protect the Patient’s confidential medical information outweighs any necessity for 14 disclosure”). For those same reasons, the Court finds that the private interest in maintaining the 3 15 confidentiality of the minor’s records in this case outweighs the public interest in access here. 16 Additionally, the Court agrees that the volume of private information would render redaction an 3 17 inappropriate and inefficient means of protecting the minor’s sensitive and confidential information. 20 For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants the parties joint administrative motion to lodge 21 the entire administrative record under seal. 23 Dated: December 20, 2023 24

6 P. Casey Pitts United States District Judge 27 28