Lumumba v. Pierce County

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT AT TACOMA FRANCISCA AJAI NDETA LUMUMBA, Case No. 3:25-cv-05381-TMC Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AND MOTION TO SEAL v. PIERCE COUNTY; PIERCE COUNTY JAIL; PIERCE COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE; NAPHCARE INC; MULTICARE HEALTH SYSTEM; JOSHUA PILAND; ALEX UTI; JOHN DOES 1-10; JANE DOES 1-5, Defendant.

I. ORDER Before the Court is pro se Plaintiff Francisca Ajai Ndeta Lumumba’s motion for leave to file an exhibit in support of her motion for preliminary injunction (Dkt. 16), and motion to seal “exhibits containing highly sensitive and private medical information” attached to her motion for preliminary injunction (Dkt. 32). Defendants did not file a response to either motion. The Court GRANTS the motion for leave to file (Dkt. 16). The document filed at Dkt. 16 will be considered as part of the exhibits in support of Ms. Lumumba’s motion for preliminary injunction. See Dkt. 15. And for the reasons explained below, the Court also GRANTS the

motion to seal (Dkt. 32). A court considering a sealing request starts with “a strong presumption in favor of access to court records.” Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003). A party seeking to overcome this presumption and seal court records relating to a dispositive motion must provide “compelling reasons” that are “sufficiently specific” for doing so. Kamakana v. City & Cnty. Of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1183 (9th Cir. 2006). “Documents filed in support of a non-dispositive motion may remain sealed if the Court finds ‘good cause’ exists to protect the information from public disclosure.” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1095 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1180).

Here, the Court finds good cause to seal Dkt. 15-5, 15-6, 15-7, and Dkt. 16. See id. These exhibits contain sensitive medical records that courts in this District regularly shield from public disclosure. See Nelson v. Washington Bd. of Indus. Appeals, No. 3:25-CV-05551-DGE, 2025 WL 1770746, at *1 (W.D. Wash. June 26, 2025) (citing cases) (“many courts in this District have recognized that the need to protect medical privacy qualifies in general as a ‘compelling reason’”) (citation modified). And “[b]alancing the public’s need for access to this information against the need to maintain the confidentiality of these medical records weighs in favor of sealing the exhibits.” Sayidin v. Warner, No. 2:24-CV-00098-JNW-TLF, 2024 WL 4529239, at *3 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 18, 2024). The motion to seal (Dkt. 32) is thus GRANTED. The documents filed at Dkt. 15-5, 15-6,

15-7, and Dkt. 16 shall be sealed. The Clerk is directed to send uncertified copies of this Order to all counsel of record and to any party appearing pro se at said party’s last known address. l Dated this 12th day of August, 2025. ; Zag Tiffany-M. Cartwright United States District Judge 1]