Garot v. County of San Diego

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: August 6, 2025
• Docket: 3:19-cv-01650
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 THOMAS RAINEY AND JUDY Case No.: 3:19-cv-01650-AHG RAINEY, CO-CONSERVATORS, ON 12 BEHALF OF COLLEEN GAROT, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 13 UNOPPOSED MOTION TO SEAL Plaintiff,

14 v. [ECF No. 352] 15 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, et al., 16 Defendants. 17

19 20 21

23 24 Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Application to File Under Seal portions of 25 her motion for approval of an incompetent person’s compromise along with related 26 attachments. ECF No. 352. Defendants in this matter have filed a Notice of Non- 27 Opposition to Plaintiff’s application. ECF Nos. 354, 356, 358. For the reasons that follow, 28 the Motion to Seal is GRANTED. 1 I. LEGAL STANDARD 2 “Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public 3 records and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City & 4 Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner 5 Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978)). Other than grand jury transcripts and warrant 6 materials in the midst of a pre-indictment investigation, which are documents that have 7 been “traditionally kept secret,” there is a “strong presumption in favor of access” to all 8 other court records. Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178; see also Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. 9 Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003). A party seeking to seal a court record bears 10 the burden of overcoming the “strong presumption in favor of access” by articulating 11 “compelling reasons for doing so.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178. 12 II. DISCUSSION 13 Here, Plaintiff argues there is good cause to allow the filing of the Motion for 14 Approval of an Incompetent Person’s Compromise and related exhibits under seal because, 15 as part of the settlement agreement, the parties agreed that “Plaintiff, and her attorney and 16 representatives, would not reveal the terms of the settlement agreement or any of the 17 amounts, numbers, terms or conditions of any sums payable to Plaintiff.” ECF No. 352 at 18 1-2. The settlement agreement also provides that “Plaintiff would, in good faith, request 19 leave of Court to submit [the] [a]greement under seal in order to maintain confidentiality.” 20 Id. at 2. Defendants filed a Notice of Non-Opposition as to Plaintiff’s Motion to File Under 21 Seal. ECF Nos. 354, 356, 358. Plaintiff has already filed a redacted version of the filing for 22 the public docket. ECF No. 357. 23 In order to protect the integrity of the settlement agreement, the Court agrees there 24 are compelling reasons to GRANT Plaintiff’s Motion to File Documents Under Seal. ECF 25 No. 352. The Clerk’s Office is directed to keep all documents contained in the entry at ECF 26 No. 353 UNDER SEAL. 27 // 28 // 1 Ht. CONCLUSION 2 Plaintiff's Ex Parte Motion to Seal (ECF No. 352) is GRANTED. The Clerk’s 3 || Office is instructed to maintain all documents lodged at ECF No. 353 UNDER SEAL 4 ||indefinitely. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 || Dated: August 6, 2025 7 8 Wow H. Kola Honorable Allison H. Goddard ? United States Magistrate Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28