Lumumba v. Pierce County

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: August 12, 2025
• Docket: 3:25-cv-05381
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3

4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 7 FRANCISCA AJAI NDETA LUMUMBA, Case No. 3:25-cv-05381-TMC 8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR 9 LEAVE TO FILE AND MOTION TO SEAL v. 10 PIERCE COUNTY; PIERCE COUNTY 11 JAIL; PIERCE COUNTY SHERIFF'S 12 OFFICE; NAPHCARE INC; MULTICARE 13 HEALTH SYSTEM; JOSHUA PILAND; 14 ALEX UTI; JOHN DOES 1-10; JANE DOES 15 1-5, 16 Defendant. 17

18 I. ORDER 19 Before the Court is pro se Plaintiff Francisca Ajai Ndeta Lumumba’s motion for leave to 20 file an exhibit in support of her motion for preliminary injunction (Dkt. 16), and motion to seal 21 “exhibits containing highly sensitive and private medical information” attached to her motion for 22 preliminary injunction (Dkt. 32). Defendants did not file a response to either motion. 23 24 1 The Court GRANTS the motion for leave to file (Dkt. 16). The document filed at Dkt. 16 2 will be considered as part of the exhibits in support of Ms. Lumumba’s motion for preliminary 3 injunction. See Dkt. 15. And for the reasons explained below, the Court also GRANTS the

4 motion to seal (Dkt. 32). 5 A court considering a sealing request starts with “a strong presumption in favor of access 6 to court records.” Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003). 7 A party seeking to overcome this presumption and seal court records relating to a dispositive 8 motion must provide “compelling reasons” that are “sufficiently specific” for doing so. 9 Kamakana v. City & Cnty. Of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1183 (9th Cir. 2006). “Documents filed 10 in support of a non-dispositive motion may remain sealed if the Court finds ‘good cause’ exists 11 to protect the information from public disclosure.” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 12 809 F.3d 1092, 1095 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1180).

13 Here, the Court finds good cause to seal Dkt. 15-5, 15-6, 15-7, and Dkt. 16. See id. These 14 exhibits contain sensitive medical records that courts in this District regularly shield from public 15 disclosure. See Nelson v. Washington Bd. of Indus. Appeals, No. 3:25-CV-05551-DGE, 2025 16 WL 1770746, at *1 (W.D. Wash. June 26, 2025) (citing cases) (“many courts in this District 17 have recognized that the need to protect medical privacy qualifies in general as a ‘compelling 18 reason’”) (citation modified). And “[b]alancing the public’s need for access to this information 19 against the need to maintain the confidentiality of these medical records weighs in favor of 20 sealing the exhibits.” Sayidin v. Warner, No. 2:24-CV-00098-JNW-TLF, 2024 WL 4529239, at 21 *3 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 18, 2024). 22 The motion to seal (Dkt. 32) is thus GRANTED. The documents filed at Dkt. 15-5, 15-6,

23 15-7, and Dkt. 16 shall be sealed. The Clerk is directed to send uncertified copies of this Order to 24 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 3 Tiffany-M. Cartwright United States District Judge 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24