Droz v. Boston Scientific Corporation

Opinion

1 THE HONORABLE RICARDO S. MARTINEZ THE HONORABLE DAVID W. CHRISTEL 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 7 AT SEATTLE 8 LINDSAY DROZ, 9 CASE NO. 2:20-CV-48-RSM-DWC Plaintiff, 10 ORDER GRANTING STIPULATION v. TO FILE MOTION TO EXCLUDE 11 EXPERT TESTIMONY UNDER BOSTON SCIENTIFIC SEAL 12 CORPORATION, 13 Defendant. 14 This matter is before the Court on the Parties’ Stipulated Motion to File Motion to 15 Exclude Expert Testimony Under Seal. Dkt. 44. The parties seek to protect Plaintiff Lindsay 16 Droz’s privacy interests and sensitive medical information. Id. 17 There is a strong presumption in favor of public access to the Court’s files. Local Rule 18 LCR 5(g). Documents may be sealed only when compelling reasons for doing so outweigh the 19 public’s right of access to Court records. EEOC v. Erection Co., 900 F. 2d 168, 170 (9th Cir. 20 1990); Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F. 3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). A 21 motion to seal, even if stipulated, must include both a certification that the parties have conferred 22 in good faith to reach agreement on the need to file under seal, and a “[s]pecific statement of the 23 applicable legal standard and the reasons for keeping a document under seal, with evidentiary 24 ORDER GRANTING STIPULATION TO FILE 1 support from declarations when necessary.” Local Rule LCR 5(g)(3)(A), (B). While the Motion 2 is stipulated and does include a specific statement of the applicable legal standard and reasons 3 for sealing, it does not include the required certification. 4 The “need to protect medical privacy qualifies in general as a ‘compelling reason’” to

5 protect medical records and to file them under seal. Karpenski v. Am. Gen. Life Companies, LLC, 6 No. 2:12-cv-01569RSM, 2013 WL 5588312, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 9, 2013) (quoting LCR 7 5(g) and Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006)). In 8 Karpenski, Chief Judge Ricardo Martinez recognized that even if a plaintiff has put her health at 9 issue in a lawsuit, she nonetheless remains entitled to the court’s protection of sensitive medical 10 information. Id.; see also Macon v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., No. C12-260 RAJ, 2013 WL 11 951013, at *5 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 12, 2013) (granting unopposed motion to seal medical records 12 even where plaintiff failed to comply with LCR 5(g) given the “private nature of the documents 13 at issue”). 14 Based on the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that

15 the Parties’ Stipulated Motion to File Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony Under Seal (Dkt. 16 44)is GRANTED. The Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony (Dkt. 45) and Declaration of 17 Charles F. Knapp In Support of Defendant’s Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony (Dkt. 46) shall 18 remain under seal. 19 Dated this 14th day of December, 2020. 20 A 21 The Honorable David W. Christel Magistrate Judge of U.S. District Court 22 23 24 ORDER GRANTING STIPULATION TO FILE