Isabella Andrade v. Costco Wholesale Corporation

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: December 15, 2025
• Docket: 3:23-cv-06125
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 ISABELLA ANDRADE, Case No. 23-cv-06125-TSH

8 Plaintiff, ORDER RE: ADMINISTRATIVE 9 v. MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL

10 COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, Re: Dkt. No. 33 11 Defendant.

12 13 I. INTRODUCTION 14 Plaintiff Isabella Andrade filed a complaint against Defendant Costco Wholesale 15 Corporation (“Costco”) for claims arising out of Andrade’s employment with Costco. ECF No. 1- 16 2. Pending before the Court is Andrade’s Administrative Motion to File Under Seal. ECF No. 33 17 (“Mot.”). For the reasons stated below, the Court GRANTS the motion.1 18 II. LEGAL STANDARD 19 “Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records 20 and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City and Cty. of 21 Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 22 U.S. 589, 597, n.7 (1978)). Courts generally apply a “compelling reasons” standard when 23 considering motions to seal, recognizing that “a strong presumption in favor of access is the 24 starting point.” Id. (cleaned up). Parties seeking to seal judicial records relating to motions that 25 are “more than tangentially related to the underlying cause of action,” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. 26 Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1099 (9th Cir. 2016), bear the burden of overcoming the 27 1 presumption with “compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the 2 general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure,” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 3 1178–79 (cleaned up). By contrast, a “good cause showing” under Federal Rule of Civil 4 Procedure 26(c) “will suffice to keep sealed records attached to non-dispositive motions.” 5 Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1180. 6 Here, the document at issue in Andrade’s Administrative Motion (ECF No. 33) was filed 7 by Andrade in connection with her Opposition to Costco’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF 8 No. 30). Motions for summary judgment, along with their attached documents, are more than 9 tangentially related to the merits of a case. See Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1098 (“while 10 discovery-related motions are often unrelated to the merits of a case, the same cannot be said for 11 materials attached to a summary judgment motion because summary judgment adjudicates 12 substantive rights and serves as a substitute for trial”) (cleaned up); Exeltis USA Inc. v. First 13 Databank, Inc., No. 17-cv-04810-HSG, 2020 WL 2838812, at *2 (N.D. Cal. June 1, 2020) 14 (“Because the parties seek to seal portions and documents which pertain to summary judgment 15 motions, the Court applies the compelling reasons standard to these documents.”). Accordingly, 16 the compelling reasons standard applies to Andrade’s Administrative Motion. 17 III. DISCUSSION 18 On October 9, 2025, Andrade filed an Administrative Motion to File Under Seal, pursuant 19 to Civil Local Rule 79-5, in connection with her Opposition to Costco’s Motion for Summary 20 Judgment. ECF Nos. 30, 33. Andrade requests that one document be filed under seal: 21 Declaration of Stephen Noel Ilg (ECF No. 31), Ex. B (“Exhibit B”) (ECF No. 33-3).2 Mot. at 4. 22 In support of her request, Andrade submits a declaration from Stephen Noel Ilg setting forth the 23 bases for sealing the document designated by Andrade. See Declaration of Stephen Noel Ilg (“Ilg 24 Decl.”) (ECF No. 33-1). Costco did not file an opposition to Andrade’s motion. 25 Andrade argues that public disclosure of the information in Exhibit B would “cause 26 concrete, particularized harm to [Andrade’s] medical privacy.” Mot. at 3–4. Exhibit B discloses 27 1 “graphic medical images and detailed treatment information about Plaintiff's disability and ER.” 2 || Ilg Decl. at 2. Specifically, Andrade seeks to seal: “(1) a medical record at ANDRADE000045— 3 57 and (2) four medical photographs—one taken in the Emergency Room (ANDRADE000175) 4 || and three documenting a severe skin reaction (ANDRADE000173-174).” Mot. at 3. 5 The Court has reviewed the requested portions to be sealed and finds Andrade’s requests 6 are narrowly tailored to her private medical records and photographs of her disability. “Courts 7 || routinely conclude that the need to protect medical privacy qualifies as a ‘compelling reason’ 8 for sealing records.” Pratt v. Gamboa, No. 17-cv-04375-LHK, 2020 WL 8992141, at *2 (N.D. 9 Cal. May 22, 2020) (cleaned up). The Court agrees that there are compelling reasons to seal the 10 || requested portions as they relate to the medical records and photographs. See id. (concluding “that 11 compelling reasons justify sealing Plaintiff’s medical records” proffered in connection with 12 summary judgment motion). 5 13 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Andrade’s Administrative Motion to seal Exhibit B 14 (ECF No 33-3). As the redacted version of Exhibit B has already been filed in the public record 15 (ECF No. 31-2), no further action is needed. 16 IV. CONCLUSION 17 For the reasons stated above, the Court GRANTS Andrade’s Administrative Motion. S 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 20 Dated: December 15, 2025

THOMAS S. HIXSON 22 United States Magistrate Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28