Jenessa Dubey v. Concentric Healthcare Solutions LLC, et al.

• Court: District Court, D. Arizona
• Decided: November 7, 2025
• Docket: 2:22-cv-02044
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Jenessa Dubey, No. CV-22-02044-PHX-DJH

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 Concentric Healthcare Solutions LLC, et al.,

13 Defendants.

14 Plaintiff and Defendants filed a Joint Motion to File under Seal the Parties’ Joint 15 Motion for Trial Continuance and Expedited Status Conference. (Doc. 137). The parties 16 state that their Joint Motion for Trial Continuance contains highly sensitive medical 17 information regarding one of the trial witnesses and, therefore, compelling reasons exist to 18 allow leave to file the Motion under seal. (Id. at 1–2). 19 The public has a long-standing, “general right to inspect and copy . . . judicial 20 records and documents.” Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978). For 21 this reason, the party seeking to file a document under seal “bears the burden of overcoming 22 this strong presumption.” Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th 23 Cir. 2006). To meet this burden, the moving party must supply the court with “compelling 24 reasons supported by factual findings.” Id. (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. 25 Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). Mere allegations of confidentiality, “without 26 any further elaboration or any specific linkage [to] the documents,” do not satisfy this 27 burden. Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1184. Additionally, potential risk of “embarrassment, 28 incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will not, without more, compel the court to || seal [the] records.” 7d. at 1179. 2 Here, the Joint Motion for Trial Continuance is premised on the private medical || matter of a critical trial witness for both parties. (Doc. 137 at 2). An individual’s private medical information has been acknowledged as the sort of sensitive information that || warrants sealing. See Domingo v. Brennan, 690 Fed. Appx. 928, 930 (9th Cir. 2017) 6|| (unpublished) (“The district court did not abuse its discretion in granting defendant's motion to file documents under seal because the documents contained sensitive medical 8 || information.”); see also Gopher Media LLC vy. Melone, 2024 WL 2835161, *1 (S.D. Cal. 9|| 2024) (finding good cause to seal an individual’s medical record being used to demonstrate 10 || why they were unable to attend a mandatory settlement conference). Further, the witness’s 11 || medical information is not at issue in these proceedings. See Melone, 2024 WL 2835161 at *1. Lastly, no party is opposed to sealing their Joint Motion. Therefore, leave to file 13 || under seal is appropriate here. 14 However, the parties filed a redacted version of their Joint Motion (Doc. 137-1), 15 || rather than a lodging an unredacted version in accordance with LRCiv. 5.6. Thus, the parties will need to refile their Joint Motion now that permission to seal has been acquired. 17 Accordingly, 18 IT IS ORDERED that the parties’ Joint Motion to file under Seal (Doc. 137) is || GRANTED. The parties must file an unredacted version of their Joint Motion for Trial 20 || Continuance under seal by 9:00 a.m. on Monday, November 10, 2025. 21 Dated this 7th day of November, 2025. 22

24 norable' Diang/4. Hunfetewa 5 United States District Judge 26 27 28

_2-