Howard v. Grierson

District Court, D. Nevada·Decided December 22, 2022·No. 2:19-cv-00749·Unknown

Opinion

* * *

REGINALD C. HOWARD, Case No.: 2:19-cv-00749-CDS-EJY

Plaintiff, ORDER v.

STEVEN GRIERSON, et al.,

Defendants.

Pending before the Court is Defendants’ Motion for Leave to File Under Seal Submission of Exhibit B to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. ECF No. 78. Defendants state that “Exhibit B [is] … the Declaration of Geraldine Worth, attached to which are the medical records of Plaintiff.” Id. at 1. As the party seeking to seal a judicial record, Defendants must meet their burden of overcoming the strong presumption in favor of access and public policies favoring disclosure. Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178-79 (9th Cir. 2006) (holding that those who seek to maintain the secrecy of documents attached to dispositive motions must meet the high threshold of showing that “compelling reasons” support secrecy). The mere fact that the production of records may lead to a party’s embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will not alone compel the court to seal its records. Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1136 (9th Cir. 2003). Importantly, medical privacy also meets the compelling reason standard. See, e.g., San Ramon Regional Med. Ctr., Inc. v. Principal Life Ins. Co., 2011 WL89931, at *n. 1 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 10, 2011); Abbey v. Hawaii Employers Mut. Ins. Co., 2010 WL4715793, at *1–2 (D.HI. Nov. 15, 2010); G. v. Hawaii, 2010 WL 267483, at *1–2 (D. HI. June 25, 2010); Wilkins v. Ahern, 2010 WL3755654 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 24, 2010); Lombardi v. Tri West Healthcare Alliance Corp., 2009 WL 1212170, at *1 (D. Ariz. May 4, 2009). ] The Court considered the Motion and the documents sought to be sealed. The Court fin Exhibit B to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment contain medical records that are proper sealed. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Leave to File Und Seal Submission of Exhibit B to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 78) GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Exhibit B to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgme shall remain sealed. DATED this 22nd day of December, 2022. 1] □ ELAYNA’Y. YOU: H ELAYNA EO ahi JUDGE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Howard v. Grierson, (D. Nev. 2022).

Howard v. Grierson (Howard v. Grierson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.