Magdziak v. Berryhill

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 DARYL M. MAGDZIAK, Case No.: 3:17-cv-01367-JAH-RNB

10 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 11 v. SEAL (ECF No. 35) 12 NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, 13 Defendant. 14

15 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Daryl M. Magdziak’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion to 16 Seal. (ECF No. 35, “Mot.”). Therein, Plaintiff requests this Court issue an order sealing 17 “sensitive information . . . [that] inva[des his] privacy” from this matter, although Plaintiff 18 does not identify what information he considers to be sensitive. 19 In the United States, “courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy 20 public records and documents, including judicial records and documents.’ ” Kamakana v. 21 City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner 22 Commc'ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 & n. 7 (1978)). To overcome the strong presumption 23 in favor of public access to court records, a party seeking to maintain a judicial record 24 under seal has the burden to show “compelling reasons supported by specific factual 25 findings” that justify sealing the records. Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass'n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 26 (9th Cir. 2009); Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178. Additionally, the party must show that 27 28 1 || compelling reasons “outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring 2 disclosure.” Pintos, 605 F.3d at 678. The Ninth Circuit notes: 3 ‘“TC]ompelling reasons” sufficient to outweigh the public's interest in A disclosure and justify sealing court records exist when such court files might have become a vehicle for improper purposes, such as the use of records to 5 gratify private spite, promote public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or 6 release trade secrets. The mere fact that the production of records may lead to a litigant's embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will 7 not, without more, compel the court to seal its records. 8 9 || Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (internal quotations and citations omitted). 10 Here, Plaintiff has not met his burden to show compelling reasons that outweigh the 11 public policy favoring disclosure of court records for an order to seal the record in this 12 ||matter. Plaintiff's assertion that the published information reveals sensitive information 13 || constituting an invasion of his privacy, alone, is an insufficient basis to grant his request. 14 || Accordingly, the motion to seal is DENIED. 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 |} DATED: November 12, 2021 17 18 19 J A. HOUSTON JNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

sy