Patel v. Alphabet Inc.

Opinion

1 2 6 7 RAJ PATEL, Case No. 23-cv-03647-BLF

8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 9 v. DENYING IN PART THIRD MOTION TO RECONSIDER 10 ALPHABET INC., et al., [Re: ECF No. 30] 11 Defendants.

12 13 Before the Court is Plaintiff Raj Patel’s Third Motion for Reconsideration, ECF No. 30, of 14 the Court’s Order denying Patel’s Motion to File Under Seal his Fourth Amended Complaint, 15 previous versions of his complaint, and his motion to reconsider the denial of his application to 16 proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 24. The Court’s ruling is laid out below. 18 “Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records 19 and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of 20 Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 21 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). Consequently, access to motions and their attachments that are 22 “more than tangentially related to the merits of a case” may be sealed only upon a showing of 23 “compelling reasons” for sealing. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 24 1101-02 (9th Cir. 2016). Filings that are only tangentially related to the merits may be sealed 25 upon a lesser showing of “good cause.” Id. at 1097. 26 In addition, in this district, all parties requesting sealing must comply with Civil Local 27 Rule 79-5. That rule requires, inter alia, the moving party to provide “the reasons for keeping a 1 warrant sealing; (ii) the injury that will result if sealing is denied; and (iii) why a less restrictive 2 alternative to sealing is not sufficient.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(c)(1). Further, Civil Local Rule 79-5 3 requires the moving party to provide “evidentiary support from declarations where necessary.” 4 Civ. L.R. 79-5(c)(2). And the proposed order must be “narrowly tailored to seal only the sealable 5 material.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(c)(3). 7 Because a complaint is more than tangentially related to the merits of the case, the Court 8 will apply the “compelling reasons” standard. See Rieckborn v. Velti PLC, No. 13-CV-03889- 9 WHO, 2014 WL 4964313, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 3, 2014) (collecting cases applying the 10 compelling reasons standard to motions to seal a complaint). 11 The Court previously granted Patel leave to file a motion for reconsideration for the 12 limited purpose of evaluating whether any private medical information should be sealed. ECF No. 13 29. The Court instructed Patel to identify the page and line numbers of each document he wishes 14 to redact on the basis of containing private medical information. Patel’s third motion for 15 reconsideration includes a table with requests for redactions that are substantially similar to the 16 redactions that Patel requested in his original motion, except Patel has changed some of his 17 reasons for sealing. Compare ECF No. 30, with ECF No. 23-2. 18 Most of the redactions that Patel requests do not include private medical information, and 19 in fact do not include confidential information of any kind. For example, Patel seeks to seal public 20 information including legal citations, public webpages, Google searches, and Patel’s arguments 21 that certain public figures’ caste information should be made available. As the Court previously 22 found, Patel’s request to seal this information does not satisfy the compelling reasons standard. 23 See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178. However, the Court finds that some paragraphs address 24 sensitive medical health information that may be sealed. See, e.g., Pratt v. Gamboa, No. 17-CV- 25 04375-LHK, 2020 WL 8992141, at *2 (N.D. Cal. May 22, 2020) (finding compelling reasons to 26 seal medical records). Therefore, the Court will GRANT the third motion for reconsideration with 27 respect to the following paragraphs of the Fourth Amended Complaint: ParagraphtoSeal | Ruling | 584 GRANTED as containing private medical and health information. 2 | 615-616 GRANTED as containing private medical and health information. | 626 GRANTED as containing private medical and health information. 3 | 628 GRANTED as containing private medical and health information. 4 || The Court DENIES the third motion for reconsideration with respect to all other paragraphs of the 5 || Fourth Amended Complaint. Because Patel has failed to request redactions for the previously 6 || publicly filed versions of his complaint and his motion to reconsider the denial of his application 7 to proceed in forma pauperis, those documents will remain on the public docket. 8 9 Il. ORDER 10 For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff Raj Patel’s Third 11 Motion for Reconsideration, ECF No. 30, is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. 12 The Court ORDERS Patel to file his Fourth Amended Complaint, which may redact the

13 paragraphs listed in the table above, on the public docket or amend his complaint to exclude any

v 14 || matters he chooses not to file on the public record no later than September 15, 2023. Failure to © 15 publicly file a properly redacted complaint or an amended complaint may cause the operative © 16 || complaint to be stricken and this case dismissed with prejudice. No further motions for

= 17 reconsideration will be permitted on this sealing matter.

Z 18 19 Dated: September 8, 2023 20 feeiiniecan BETH LABSON FREEMAN 21 United States District Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28