Doe 1400 v. Stanford Health Care

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 SAN JOSE DIVISION 7 8 DOE #1400, Case No. 5:24-cv-09359-BLF

9 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 10 v. RECONSIDERATION; AND TERMINATING MOTION TO 11 STANFORD HEALTH CARE, SHORTEN TIME AND MOTION TO USE DOCUMENTS IN STATE COURT 12 Defendant. [Re: Dkt. Nos. 37, 38] 13

14 15 Before the Court is pseudonymous Plaintiff Doe #1400’s motion for reconsideration of this 16 Court’s order denying Plaintiff’s motion to seal the entire record in this proceeding. Dkt. Nos. 37, 17 38. Plaintiff also moves for an order shortening time on the reconsideration motion, as well as an 18 “order to use the sealed (redacted version) of the two sealed documents in this case for 19 enforcement of 367.3 in the California Superior Court.” Dkt. No. 37 at 1. 20 For the following reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration and 21 TERMINATES Plaintiff’s motion for an order shortening time and Plaintiff’s motion for an order 22 regarding use of certain documents in state court. 23 I. BACKGROUND 24 Plaintiff Doe #1400 initially filed suit against Stanford Health Care (“SHC”) and Doe 25 defendants on September 3, 2024. Dkt. No. 1-1, Exhibit A to Notice of Removal of Action Under 26 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b), at 2, 5. Following Plaintiff’s amendment and subsequent service on SHC, 27 SHC filed its Answer and removed the action to this Court. Id. at 2, 15, 27; Dkt. No. 1, Notice of 1 Action Under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b), at 2. The Parties engaged in motion practice over Plaintiff’s 2 request to have the action remanded to the state court, see Dkt. Nos. 14, 15, 20, 23, 24, 26, 29, 31, 3 and this Court ultimately issued a remand order on April 7, 2025, Dkt. No. 34. The Superior 4 Court of California for the County of Santa Clara documented its receipt of the remand materials 5 on April 15, 2025. See Dkt. No. 36. 6 At the same time as Plaintiff was seeking remand to the state court, Plaintiff also sought to 7 seal the entire record of this proceeding in federal court. SHC opposed the request on the ground 8 that “Plaintiff has not set forth any basis for why the entire case . . . should be sealed.” Dkt. No. 9 26 at 9 (emphasis added). The Court concurred with Defendant’s argument and denied Plaintiff’s 10 request to seal the entire record, although the Court did seal all documents in the record that reveal 11 any identifying information about Plaintiff in the body of the document or the digital tab 12 associated with the document. Dkt. No. 34 at 8–9. Plaintiff then brought the present motion for 13 reconsideration. Dkt. No. 37. 14 II. LEGAL STANDARD 15 “A district court may seal its records pursuant to its inherent supervisory power over such 16 documents.” Brennan v. Opus Bank, 796 F.3d 1125, 1134 (9th Cir. 2015) (citing Hagestad v. 17 Tragesser, 49 F.3d 1430, 1434 (9th Cir. 1995), and Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 18 589, 598 (1978)). Accordingly, a district court that has otherwise lost jurisdiction over a case may 19 still reconsider its prior sealing order. See id. 20 Pursuant to Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “any order or other 21 decision, however designated, that adjudicates fewer than all the claims or the rights and liabilities 22 of fewer than all the parties . . . may be revised at any time before the entry of a judgment 23 adjudicating all the claims and all the parties’ rights and liabilities.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). In this 24 district, a Rule 54(b) motion for reconsideration usually must satisfy additional requirements, set 25 forth in Civil Local Rule 7-9(b). Specifically, reconsideration may usually be sought only if one 26 of the following circumstances exists: 27 (1) That . . . a material difference in fact or law exists from that which was presented to the Court before entry of the interlocutory order for which reconsideration is sought. The reconsideration did not know such fact or law at the time of the interlocutory order; or 1 (2) The emergence of new material facts or a change of law occurring after the time of 2 such order; or (3) A manifest failure by the Court to consider material facts or dispositive legal arguments 3 which were presented to the Court before such interlocutory order. 4 Civ. L.R. 7-9(b). 5 III. DISCUSSION 6 In the motion for reconsideration, Plaintiff expresses concern that Plaintiff’s identifying 7 information—such as Plaintiff’s name, signature, and medical conditions—appears publicly on the 8 docket, and, specifically, in the electronic document tabs for certain filings in this case. Dkt. No. 9 37 at 4. Plaintiff provides an exhibit to demonstrate the issue, which depicts the web previewer 10 for a PDF document filed in this case. Dkt. No. 38, Exhibit A to Plaintiff’s Motion for 11 Reconsideration, at 3. In addition, Plaintiff requests to “show someone in person, using [their] 12 personal laptop, to demonstrate how [their] name is still public on the tabs.” Dkt. No. 37 at 4. 13 Plaintiff’s motion fails to identify “a material difference in fact or law . . . from that which 14 was presented to the Court before entry of the interlocutory order for which reconsideration is 15 sought,” “[t]he emergence of new material facts or a change of law occurring after the time of 16 such order,” or “[a] manifest failure by the Court to consider material facts or dispositive legal 17 arguments which were presented to the Court before such interlocutory order.” Civ. L.R. 7-9(b). 18 Instead, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration simply reiterates the same concerns regarding the 19 document tabs that were raised in the previous motion to seal. In response to that motion, the 20 Court determined that preserving Plaintiff’s anonymity is a compelling reason in support of 21 sealing, since Plaintiff is a protected person under California law. Dkt. No. 34 at 9. Accordingly, 22 the Court has already sealed all documents that include identifying information about Plaintiff in 23 the digital document tab. Id. Prior to that sealing order, the Court had also granted Plaintiff’s 24 request to seal the document depicting a portion of Plaintiff’s signature. Dkt. No. 17 at 4–5. For 25 clarity, the Court notes that because Plaintiff is a party to the litigation, Plaintiff is still able to 26 open and review those documents in Plaintiff’s own browser window. However, that access is 27 unique to Plaintiff, Defendant, and the Court. A general member of the public cannot open or 1 Because the Court has already sealed the documents at issue and Plaintiff has failed to 2 || identify any basis for reconsideration of the Court’s denial of the motion to seal the entire record, 3 Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED. The motion to shorten time is TERMINATED 4 || AS MOOT. Likewise, Plaintiff's request for an order permitting Plaintiff “to use the sealed 5 (redacted version) of the two sealed documents in this case” in the state court proceedings is 6 || TERMINATED. Plaintiff does not require permission from this Court to use Plaintiffs own 7 || records as Plaintiff wishes. 8 || IV. ORDER 9 For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 10 1. Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the Court’s order denying Plaintiff’s motion 11 to seal the entire record in this proceeding is DENIED. 12 2. Plaintiffs motion to shorten time is TERMINATED AS MOOT. 5 13 3. Plaintiff’s request for an order permitting Plaintiff “to use the sealed (redacted version) 14 of the two sealed documents in this case” in the state court proceedings is 3 15 TERMINATED. 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 19 Dated: May 6, 2025

TH LABSON FREEMAN 21 United States District Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28