Hipschman v. County of San Diego

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CAROLINA HIPSCHMAN, an Case No.: 22-cv-903-AJB-BLM individual; et al., 12 ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS TO

SEAL OF DOCUMENTS FROM 13 Plaintiffs, JUVENILE DEPENDENCY 14 v. PROCEEDINGS AND MEDICAL RECORDS 15

16 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, a public (Doc. Nos. 161, 165, 176) entity; et al., 17

18 Defendants.

19 Before the Court are three motions to seal—one filed by Defendants County of San 20 Diego, Nidia Romero, Elizabeth Samuels, Jose Padilla, Mary Shehee, Tin Le and Maria 21 Araiza (collectively, “Defendants”), and two filed by Plaintiffs Carolina Hipschman and 22 Alexander Hipschman and (collectively, “Plaintiffs”). (Doc. Nos. 161, 165, 176.) The 23 motions are unopposed. The Court finds the matters suitable for determination on the 24 papers and without need for oral argument. See L. Civ. R. 7.1.d.1. For the reasons stated 25 herein, the Court GRANTS the motions to seal. 26 I. BACKGROUND 27 This action arises from the County of San Diego’s and its social workers’ alleged 28 improper seizure of Plaintiffs’ minor child following a hospital visit for a bump on the 1 child’s head. At issue is the sealing of exhibits containing information from juvenile 2 dependency proceedings and medical records. (Doc. Nos. 161 at 1; 165 at 3–4; 176 at 3.) 3 II. LEGAL STANDARD 4 Courts have historically recognized a “general right to inspect and copy public 5 records and documents, including judicial records and documents.” Nixon v. Warner 6 Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978). “Unless a particular court record 7 is one ‘traditionally kept secret,’ a ‘strong presumption in favor of access’ is the starting 8 point. Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) 9 (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). To 10 overcome this strong presumption, a party seeking to seal a judicial record must articulate 11 justifications for sealing that outweigh the public policies favoring disclosure. See id. at 12 1178–79. The showing required to satisfy this burden depends, not merely on whether the 13 motion to which the documents relate are dispositive or nondispositive, but rather, 14 “whether the motion is more than tangentially related to the merits of a case.” Ctr. for Auto 15 Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1101 (9th Cir. 2016). 16 If the underlying motion is more than tangentially related to the merits, the 17 “compelling reasons” standard applies. Id. at 1096–98, 1102. “What constitutes a 18 ‘compelling reason’ is ‘best left to the sound discretion of the trial court.’” Id. at 1097 19 (quoting Nixon, 435 U.S. at 599). And the court must “conscientiously balance the 20 competing interests of the public and the party who seeks to keep certain judicial records 21 secret.” Id. at 1097 (internal quotation marks, alteration, and citation omitted). 22 If the underlying motion does not pass the “more than tangentially related” 23 threshold, the “good cause” standard applies. Id. at 1096–98. 24 III. DISCUSSION 25 Here, Defendants request to seal Exhibits A, E, H, K, O, P, R, T, W, X, Y, Z, CC, 26 FF, GG, and HH filed in support of their motion for summary judgment. (Doc. No. 161 at 27 1.) In support, Defendants explain that the exhibits “are records from related state juvenile 28 dependency proceedings and Health and Human Services Agency released records” which 1 are “sensitive, statutorily protected information regarding juvenile dependency 2 proceedings” under California Welfare & Institutions Code § 827. (Id. at 1, 3.) 3 Plaintiffs request to seal Exhibits D-H, J, O-U, and W-Z filed in support of their 4 motion for partial summary judgment because they “contain and/or discuss private medical 5 information related to C.H., a minor, and contain C.H.’s unabbreviated name.” (Doc. No. 6 165-1 at 2.) Moreover, “Exhibit T-2 contains the unabbreviated name of the minor, C.H., 7 and personally identifiable information of third parties[,]” and Exhibit X “contains medical 8 information pertaining to a third-party minor, identified as J.P.1.” (Id.) Plaintiffs also seek 9 to seal the Declaration of Premi Suresh, M.D., filed in support of their summary judgment 10 motion because it “contains and discusses substantial medical information related to the 11 minor, C.H. Further, C.H.’s name is unabbreviated.” (Id.) 12 Plaintiffs’ other motion to seal requests sealing of Exhibits BB–OO and UU filed in 13 support of their summary judgment motion because they “contain and/or discuss private 14 medical information related to C.H., a minor, and contain C.H.’s unabbreviated name” and 15 “discuss and/or contain information derived from C.H.’s juvenile records.” (Doc. No. 16 176-1 at 2.) 17 Because the documents to be sealed are filed in connection with the pending motions 18 for summary judgment, they are more than tangentially related to the merits of the case. 19 Thus, the “compelling reasons” standard applies.1 See Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 20 1102; Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179. 21 Upon review of the parties’ briefs and declarations in support of their respective 22 sealing request, the Court finds they have met their burden to “articulate compelling 23 reasons supported by specific factual findings” which “outweigh the general history of 24 access and the public policies favoring disclosure, such as the public interest in 25 understanding the judicial process.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178–79 (internal alterations, 26 27 28 1 || quotation marks, and citation omitted). Because the documents to be sealed concern 2 statutorily protected juvenile records and/or personal medical information of the minor at 3 |}issue, as well as a third-party minor, the Court finds the minors’ significant privacy 4 ||interests overcome the public’s general (and here, minimal) interest in disclosure. See 5 || Nixon, 435 U.S. at 599 (“[T]he decision as to access is one best left to the sound discretion 6 || of the trial court, a discretion to be exercised in light of the relevant facts and circumstances 7 || of the particular case.”). 8 |TV. CONCLUSION 9 For the reasons stated herein, the Court GRANTS the parties’ motions to seal. (Doc. 10 161, 165, 176.) Accordingly, the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to file as sealed the 11 documents lodged at Doc. Nos. 162, 166, and 177. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 ||Dated: August 8, 2025 © ¢ 14 Hon. Anthony J.Battaglia 15 United States District Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28