Copeland v. Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals Inc.

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: August 20, 2024
• Docket: 5:24-cv-03042
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 SAN JOSE DIVISION 6 7 TRAVETTE COPELAND, et al., Case No. 5:24-cv-03042-BLF

8 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING 9 v. ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER PLAINTIFFS’ 10 BAYER HEALTHCARE MATERIAL SHOULD BE SEALED PHARMACEUTICALS INC., 11 [Re: ECF No. 26] Defendant. 12 13 Before the Court is Defendant Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals Inc.’s (“Bayer”) 14 Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Plaintiffs’ Material Should Be Sealed Pursuant to 15 L.R. 7-11 and 79-5(f). ECF No. 26. For the reasons described below, the administrative motion is 16 GRANTED. 17 I. LEGAL STANDARD 18 “Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records 19 and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of 20 Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 21 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). Accordingly, when considering a sealing request, “a ‘strong 22 presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.” Id. (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. 23 Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). Parties seeking to seal judicial records relating to 24 motions that are “more than tangentially related to the underlying cause of action” bear the burden 25 of overcoming the presumption with “compelling reasons” that outweigh the general history of 26 access and the public policies favoring disclosure. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., 809 F.3d 27 1092, 1099 (9th Cir. 2016); Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178–79. 1 II. DISCUSSION 2 Bayer filed the Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Plaintiffs’ Material Should Be 3 Sealed Pursuant to L.R. 7-11 and 79-5(f) on August 2, 2024. ECF No. 26. The motion addresses 4 selected portions of Exhibit E to the Declaration of Isabelle L. Ord in Support of Bayer’s Request 5 for Judicial Notice and Motion to Dismiss the Class Action Complaint (“Ord RJN Decl.”). See 6 ECF No. 25-3 at 45–46. Bayer writes that while “it is Plaintiffs’ burden to establish that the 7 redacted information should remain under seal,” Defendant “does not oppose sealing the portions 8 of the document that were filed with redactions provisionally under seal.” ECF No. 26 at 2. 9 Plaintiffs Travette Copeland and Lila Chu (“Plaintiffs”) filed Plaintiffs’ Corrected 10 Response Opposition to Defendant’s Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Plaintiffs’ 11 Material Should Be Sealed on August 8, 2024. ECF No. 28. Plaintiffs write that the information 12 should be sealed because it contains personally identifying information and sensitive health 13 information unrelated to this lawsuit, and that therefore the “redaction should remain in place to 14 protect Ms. Copeland’s medical privacy.” Id. at 2–3. 15 The Court finds that compelling reasons exist to seal the highlighted portions of the 16 document. “Courts have repeatedly concluded that the need to keep personal health information 17 confidential outweighs the presumption in favor of public access to court records.” California 18 Spine & Neurosurgery Inst. v. United Healthcare Ins. Co., No. 19-CV-02417-LHK, 2021 WL 19 1146216, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 12, 2021); San Ramon Reg’l Med. Ctr., Inc. v. Principal Life Ins. 20 Co., No. C 10-02258 SBA, 2011 WL 89931, at *1 n.1 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 10, 2011) (finding that “the 21 need to protect the Patient’s confidential medical information” outweighed the presumption in 22 favor of disclosure); Ortiz v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, No. 18-CV-07727-HSG, 2020 WL 23 2793615, at *9 (N.D. Cal. May 29, 2020) (“[H]ealth records properly meet the compelling reasons 24 standard.”). Likewise, courts have found compelling reasons to seal personally identifying 25 information. See, e.g., Snapkeys, Ltd. v. Google LLC, No. 19-CV-02658-LHK, 2021 WL 26 1951250, at *3 (N.D. Cal. May 14, 2021) (collecting cases); see also Stiner v. Brookdale Senior 27 Living, Inc., No. 17-CV-03962- HSG, 2022 WL 1180214, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 29, 2022) (sealing 1 narrowly tailored. 2 The Court’s ruling is summarized below: 3 ECF or Document Portion(s) to Seal Ruling 4 Exhibit No. 25-3, at pp. | Exhibit E to Ord RJN Decl.: | Portions Granted, as containing personally 5 45-46 Kaiser Permanente highlighted in identifying information and “Physician Bill for yellow confidential medical information 6 Services” document 7 Il. ORDER 8 For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the administrative motion is 9 || GRANTED. 10 11 Dated: August 20, 2024 a ff ease FREEMAN 13 United States District Judge

15 16

it

4 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28