Cousin v. Sharp Healthcare

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 HANNAH COUSIN, et al., individually Case No.: 22-cv-2040-MMA-DDL and on behalf of all others similarly 11 situated, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 12 FILE UNDER SEAL Plaintiffs,

13 v. [Doc. No. 30] 14 SHARP HEALTHCARE, 15 Defendant. 16 17 18 Pending before the Court is Defendant Sharp Healthcare’s motion to dismiss 19 Plaintiffs’ First Amended Consolidated Complaint. On October 9, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a 20 redacted opposition, as well as a motion for leave to file an unredacted version of their 21 opposition under seal. Plaintiffs’ motion to seal is unopposed to date. 22 When presented with a request to file a document under seal, the Court begins with 23 the strong presumption in favor of the “general right to inspect and copy public records 24 and documents, including judicial records and documents.” Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, 25 Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 n.7 (1978); see also Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of Honolulu, 26 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). “The presumption of access is ‘based on the need 27 for federal courts, although independent—indeed, particularly because they are 28 independent—to have a measure of accountability and for the public to have confidence 1 the administration of justice.’” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 2 || 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1048 (2d 3 || Cir. 1995)). As such, the burden on a motion to seal falls squarely on the movant. 4 || Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1176. The moving party can only overcome the presumption by 5 || “articulat[ing] compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings . . . that 6 || outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure, such as 7 || the public interest in understanding the judicial process.” Jd. at 1178 (citations omitted) 8 (internal quotation marks omitted). “In turn, the court must ‘conscientiously balance[ | 9 || the competing interests’ of the public and the party who seeks to keep certain judicial 10 |/records secret.” /d. at 1179 (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 11 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). “What constitutes a “compelling reason’ is “best left to the 12 ||sound discretion of the trial court.’” Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1097 (quoting 13 || Nixon, 435 U.S. at 599). 14 Having reviewed the motion and respective documents, the Court finds that 15 || Plaintiffs have shown compelling reasons to file the unredacted opposition under seal. 16 || See, e.g., Dunsmore v. San Diego Cty. Sheriff's Dep’t, No. 20-cv-00406-AJB-DDL, 2023 17 || U.S. Dist. LEXIS 102207, at *5 (S.D. Cal. June 12, 2023) (recognizing that the need to 18 || protect medical privacy has qualified as a “compelling reason” for sealing records). 19 || Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion and DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to 20 || file Doc. No. 31 UNDER SEAL. 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 ||Dated: October 12, 2023 23 M —{ hill 24 HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO 25 United States District Judge 26 27 28