Green v. Scally

Opinion

Case No.: 2:23-cv-00244-JAD-MDC Taelor Green, Plaintiff Order Granting Motion to Seal v. [ECF No. 51] James Scally, et al.,

Defendants

The defendants in this civil-rights action move to seal several exhibits attached to their motion for summary judgment.1 “The public has a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records and documents including judicial records and documents.’”2 “Although the common law right of access is not absolute, ‘[courts] start with a strong presumption in favor of access to court records.’”3 “A party seeking to seal judicial records can overcome the strong presumption of access by providing ‘sufficiently compelling reasons’ that override the public policies favoring disclosure.”4 “When ruling on a motion to seal court records, the district court must balance the competing interests of the public and the party seeking to seal judicial records.”5 “To seal the records, the district court must articulate a factual basis for each compelling reason to seal[,] [which] must continue to exist to keep judicial records sealed.”6 The Ninth Circuit has, however, “‘carved out an exception to the presumption of access’ to judicial records”

1 ECF Nos. 50, 51, 52. 2 In re Midland Nat. Life Ins. Co. Annuity Sales Pracs. Litig., 686 F.3d 1115, 1119 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns., Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978)). 3 Id. (quoting Foltz v. St. Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). 4 Id. (quoting Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1135). 5 Id. (citing Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006)). 6 Id. (citing Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179; Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1136). that is “‘expressly limited to’ judicial records ‘filed under seal when attached to a non-dispositive motion.’”7 “Under the exception, ‘the usual presumption of the public’s right is rebutted[,]’” so “a particularized showing of ‘good cause’ under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) is sufficient to preserve the secrecy of sealed discovery documents attached to non-dispositive motions.”8

I find that the higher compelling-reasons standard applies in this context because the underlying summary-judgment motion is dispositive. The defendants seek to seal Exhibits A-G, I-L, and N to their motion, averring that they contain the plaintiff’s confidential medical records and video footage taken from inside the prison. I reviewed those exhibits in camera and I conclude that there are compelling reasons to seal them in their entirety. The bulk of the sealed exhibits contain sensitive medical information that the plaintiff has a right to keep private. And the sealed video footage depicts internal prison construction and design that, if publicly released, may present security concerns. I am satisfied that releasing the information contained in the exhibits could potentially damage the parties, so I grant the defendants’ motion to seal.

7 Id. (quoting Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1135). 8 Id. (quoting Phillips ex rel. Ests. of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1213 (9th Cir. 2002); Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1135, 1138). 1 Conclusion IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the defendants’ motion to seal [ECF No. 51] is 3] GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is directed to MAINTAIN THE SEAL on ECF No. 52. The Clerk of Court is further directed to SEND plaintiff a courtesy copy of this order by delivering it 5 to Northern Nevada Correctional Center’s law library.’ YT, July 29, 2025 8 9 See ECF No. 58 (order noting that plaintiff has been transferred and directing him to update his address by August 14, 2025).