1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KEENAN WILKINS, aka NERRAH No. 2:19-cv-1338 WBS KJN P BROWN 12 Plaintiff, 13 FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS v. 14 DR. CHRISTINE S. BARBER, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 I. Introduction 18 Plaintiff is a state prisoner. On November 12, 2021, plaintiff filed a motion to protect his 19 privacy rights under Rule 59 or 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or in the alternative, 20 plaintiff moves for reconsideration. (ECF No. 218.) Defendants filed no opposition. 21 As set forth below, the undersigned recommends that plaintiff’s motion be denied. 22 II. Background 23 On July 13, 2020, plaintiff filed a motion to seal confidential medical records. (ECF No. 24 97.) On September 11, 2020, the undersigned reviewed the medical records, found that as to 25 some of the medical records, the need to protect plaintiff’s sensitive and confidential information 26 outweighed any necessity for disclosure at this time, and partially granted plaintiff’s motion to 27 seal. (ECF No. 116 at 3-4.) 28 //// 1 On September 28, 2020, plaintiff filed a reply accompanied by a motion to file specific 2 medical records under seal. (ECF No. 126.) On October 19, 2020, the undersigned found plaintiff’s 3 reply was improperly filed, and directed the clerk to return the medical records to plaintiff. Plaintiff 4 was instructed how to submit records he wished to file under seal, and cautioned that: 5 whether or not medical records will be sealed is not automatic. Plaintiff has put his medical treatment at issue, and there is a strong 6 presumption that judicial records are accessible to the public. Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th 7 Cir. 2006). 8 (ECF No. 128 at 2.) 9 On October 6, 2021, plaintiff renewed his motion to seal confidential medical records. 10 (ECF No. 205 at 1.) Plaintiff objected that defense counsel willfully violated plaintiff’s privacy 11 and victim rights, and then argued that his medical records should be sealed because they are 12 confidential. (Id.) On October 27, 2021, the court denied plaintiff’s motion to seal all of his 13 medical records, again relying on Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178, and now Foltz v. State Farm Mut. 14 Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003). (ECF No. 213.) The undersigned found that 15 plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment and state law claims involve plaintiff’s myriad medical conditions, 16 and evaluation of his medical treatment will be required to address the merits of the pending 17 motions for summary judgment. (ECF No. 213.) Because plaintiff provided no compelling 18 reason to seal such records, the undersigned found that plaintiff failed to meet his burden and 19 denied the motion. 20 In the instant motion, plaintiff asks the court to reconsider its ruling on plaintiff’s motion 21 to seal all of his medical records in this case (ECF No. 218). 22 III. Legal Standards 23 Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that “[o]n motion and upon 24 such terms as are just, the court may relieve a party . . . from a final judgment, order, or 25 proceeding for the following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; 26 (2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence could not have been discovered in 27 time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud . . ., misrepresentation, or misconduct by 28 1 an opposing party; . . . or (6) any other reason justifying relief from the operation of judgment.”1 2 “A motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual 3 circumstances, unless the . . . court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear 4 error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law.” Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. 5 Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009). Relief under Rule 60 “is to be 6 used sparingly as an equitable remedy to prevent manifest injustice and is to be utilized only 7 where extraordinary circumstances” exist. Harvest v. Castro, 531 F.3d 737, 749 (9th Cir. 2008) 8 (internal quotations marks and citation omitted) (addressing reconsideration under Rule 60(b)(1) - 9 (5)). Reconsideration is not appropriate when a movant relies on arguments previously raised; 10 that is, a motion for reconsideration is not a vehicle permitting the unsuccessful party to reiterate 11 arguments previously presented. See Maraziti v. Thorpe, 52 F.3d 252, 255 (9th Cir. 1995) 12 (district court properly denied Rule 60(b)(6) motion because movant “merely reiterated the 13 arguments that he had already presented to the district court”). 14 In addition, Local Rule 230(j) requires that a motion for reconsideration state “what new 15 or different facts or circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown 16 upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion,” and “why the facts or 17 circumstances were not shown at the time of the prior motion.” E.D. Cal., L.R. 230(j)(3)-(4). 18 IV. Discussion 19 Plaintiff now argues that his privacy rights are violated by the court’s denial of plaintiff’s 20 motion to seal his medical records. (See ECF No. 205.) But plaintiff sets forth no newly 21 discovered evidence and fails to demonstrate the court committed clear error. Plaintiff identifies 22 no intervening change in the controlling law. He does cite nine district court decisions. 23 However, all of the district court cases cited were issued prior to this court’s October 27, 2021 24 order.2 But most importantly, other district court decisions are not binding on this court, and
25 1 Subsection (4) “the judgment is void,” and subsection (5) “the judgment has been satisfied,” do not apply. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4), (5). Rule 59 is inapplicable because no trial has been held, or 26 judgment entered. Further, plaintiff was previously provided the standards governing both Rule 27 59 and Rule 60 in the October 28, 2021 order. (ECF No. 214 at 6.)
28 2 Plaintiff cited nine district court cases, but failed to identify the court that issued the decision, 1 therefore are not controlling. It is not uncommon for district courts to disagree, but only 2 decisions by the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit or the U.S. Supreme Court are controlling. 3 Thus, plaintiff is not entitled to relief under Rule 60. 4 Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration also fails. Plaintiff did not explain why he was 5 unable to make his privacy rights argument in his prior motion to seal. He did not identify any 6 different facts or circumstances which did not exist or were not included in his prior motion to 7 seal. Upon reconsideration, the order denying plaintiff’s motion to seal all medical records in this 8 case (ECF No. 213) should be affirmed. 9 V. Law of the Case 10 Once a decision of law is made, it becomes the “law of the case,” and absent clear error or 11 changed circumstances should not be changed. See United States v. Estrada Lucas, 651 F.2d 12 1261, 1263-64 (9th Cir. 1980). “The law of the case doctrine is a judicial invention designed to 13 aid in the efficient operation of court affairs.” Milgard Tempering, Inc. v. Selas Corp.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KEENAN WILKINS, aka NERRAH No. 2:19-cv-1338 WBS KJN P BROWN 12 Plaintiff, 13 FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS v. 14 DR. CHRISTINE S. BARBER, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 I. Introduction 18 Plaintiff is a state prisoner. On November 12, 2021, plaintiff filed a motion to protect his 19 privacy rights under Rule 59 or 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or in the alternative, 20 plaintiff moves for reconsideration. (ECF No. 218.) Defendants filed no opposition. 21 As set forth below, the undersigned recommends that plaintiff’s motion be denied. 22 II. Background 23 On July 13, 2020, plaintiff filed a motion to seal confidential medical records. (ECF No. 24 97.) On September 11, 2020, the undersigned reviewed the medical records, found that as to 25 some of the medical records, the need to protect plaintiff’s sensitive and confidential information 26 outweighed any necessity for disclosure at this time, and partially granted plaintiff’s motion to 27 seal. (ECF No. 116 at 3-4.) 28 //// 1 On September 28, 2020, plaintiff filed a reply accompanied by a motion to file specific 2 medical records under seal. (ECF No. 126.) On October 19, 2020, the undersigned found plaintiff’s 3 reply was improperly filed, and directed the clerk to return the medical records to plaintiff. Plaintiff 4 was instructed how to submit records he wished to file under seal, and cautioned that: 5 whether or not medical records will be sealed is not automatic. Plaintiff has put his medical treatment at issue, and there is a strong 6 presumption that judicial records are accessible to the public. Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th 7 Cir. 2006). 8 (ECF No. 128 at 2.) 9 On October 6, 2021, plaintiff renewed his motion to seal confidential medical records. 10 (ECF No. 205 at 1.) Plaintiff objected that defense counsel willfully violated plaintiff’s privacy 11 and victim rights, and then argued that his medical records should be sealed because they are 12 confidential. (Id.) On October 27, 2021, the court denied plaintiff’s motion to seal all of his 13 medical records, again relying on Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178, and now Foltz v. State Farm Mut. 14 Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003). (ECF No. 213.) The undersigned found that 15 plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment and state law claims involve plaintiff’s myriad medical conditions, 16 and evaluation of his medical treatment will be required to address the merits of the pending 17 motions for summary judgment. (ECF No. 213.) Because plaintiff provided no compelling 18 reason to seal such records, the undersigned found that plaintiff failed to meet his burden and 19 denied the motion. 20 In the instant motion, plaintiff asks the court to reconsider its ruling on plaintiff’s motion 21 to seal all of his medical records in this case (ECF No. 218). 22 III. Legal Standards 23 Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that “[o]n motion and upon 24 such terms as are just, the court may relieve a party . . . from a final judgment, order, or 25 proceeding for the following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; 26 (2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence could not have been discovered in 27 time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud . . ., misrepresentation, or misconduct by 28 1 an opposing party; . . . or (6) any other reason justifying relief from the operation of judgment.”1 2 “A motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual 3 circumstances, unless the . . . court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear 4 error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law.” Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. 5 Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009). Relief under Rule 60 “is to be 6 used sparingly as an equitable remedy to prevent manifest injustice and is to be utilized only 7 where extraordinary circumstances” exist. Harvest v. Castro, 531 F.3d 737, 749 (9th Cir. 2008) 8 (internal quotations marks and citation omitted) (addressing reconsideration under Rule 60(b)(1) - 9 (5)). Reconsideration is not appropriate when a movant relies on arguments previously raised; 10 that is, a motion for reconsideration is not a vehicle permitting the unsuccessful party to reiterate 11 arguments previously presented. See Maraziti v. Thorpe, 52 F.3d 252, 255 (9th Cir. 1995) 12 (district court properly denied Rule 60(b)(6) motion because movant “merely reiterated the 13 arguments that he had already presented to the district court”). 14 In addition, Local Rule 230(j) requires that a motion for reconsideration state “what new 15 or different facts or circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown 16 upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion,” and “why the facts or 17 circumstances were not shown at the time of the prior motion.” E.D. Cal., L.R. 230(j)(3)-(4). 18 IV. Discussion 19 Plaintiff now argues that his privacy rights are violated by the court’s denial of plaintiff’s 20 motion to seal his medical records. (See ECF No. 205.) But plaintiff sets forth no newly 21 discovered evidence and fails to demonstrate the court committed clear error. Plaintiff identifies 22 no intervening change in the controlling law. He does cite nine district court decisions. 23 However, all of the district court cases cited were issued prior to this court’s October 27, 2021 24 order.2 But most importantly, other district court decisions are not binding on this court, and
25 1 Subsection (4) “the judgment is void,” and subsection (5) “the judgment has been satisfied,” do not apply. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4), (5). Rule 59 is inapplicable because no trial has been held, or 26 judgment entered. Further, plaintiff was previously provided the standards governing both Rule 27 59 and Rule 60 in the October 28, 2021 order. (ECF No. 214 at 6.)
28 2 Plaintiff cited nine district court cases, but failed to identify the court that issued the decision, 1 therefore are not controlling. It is not uncommon for district courts to disagree, but only 2 decisions by the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit or the U.S. Supreme Court are controlling. 3 Thus, plaintiff is not entitled to relief under Rule 60. 4 Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration also fails. Plaintiff did not explain why he was 5 unable to make his privacy rights argument in his prior motion to seal. He did not identify any 6 different facts or circumstances which did not exist or were not included in his prior motion to 7 seal. Upon reconsideration, the order denying plaintiff’s motion to seal all medical records in this 8 case (ECF No. 213) should be affirmed. 9 V. Law of the Case 10 Once a decision of law is made, it becomes the “law of the case,” and absent clear error or 11 changed circumstances should not be changed. See United States v. Estrada Lucas, 651 F.2d 12 1261, 1263-64 (9th Cir. 1980). “The law of the case doctrine is a judicial invention designed to 13 aid in the efficient operation of court affairs.” Milgard Tempering, Inc. v. Selas Corp. of 14 America, 902 F.2d 703, 715 (9th Cir. 1990), citing Lockert v. United States Dept. of Labor, 867 15 F.2d 513, 518 (9th Cir. 1989). Under the doctrine, “a court will generally refuse to reconsider an 16 issue that has already been decided by the same court or a higher court in the same case.” 17 Gonzalez v. Arizona, 677 F.3d 383, 389-90 n.4 (9th Cir. 2012), cert. granted, 568 U.S. 962 (2012) 18 and aff’d sub nom. Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc., 570 U.S. 1 (2013). 19 the precise date the decision was rendered, or the page number upon which plaintiff relied. (ECF 20 No. 218 at 2-3.) Plaintiff is cautioned that failure to provide such information in the future will result in the court disregarding such citation. On this one occasion, and because such information 21 was important in addressing plaintiff’s motion, the court provides the full citation for each case cited by plaintiff but will not do so in the future. Plaintiff cited: Steven City Broomfield v. 22 Aranas, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87484 (D. Nev. May 19, 2020); Liaw v. United Airlines, Inc., 23 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 204492 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 22, 2019); United States v. Davis, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 243977 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 29, 2020); United States v. Dadi, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24 187336 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 8, 2020); United States v. Prom, 2021 U.S. District LEXIS 56147 (E.D. Cal. March 24, 2021); United States v. Ramirez, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 231482 (E.D. Cal. 25 Dec. 9, 2020); Johnsen v. Tambe, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 144715 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 26, 2019); Ribot v. Smith, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4191 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 7, 2021); and Pratt v. Gamboa, 2020 26 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90913 (N.D. Cal. May 22, 2020). 27 Plaintiff also cited United States v. Labor, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 231482, but the number cited is the same as Ramirez, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 231482. 28 ] Plaintiff continues to challenge this court’s decision not to seal all of plaintiff's medical 2 || records in this case. However, the denial of plaintiff's motion to seal all medical records in this 3 || action is law of the case, precluding any further challenge by plaintiff in this action. In other 4 || words, absent clear error or changed circumstances, this court will refuse to reconsider the issue 5 || in this action. Certainly, plaintiff remains free to challenge whether a particular document should 6 || be sealed. But no further requests to seal the entirety of plaintiff's medical records will be 7 || entertained, subject to rare exceptions identified above. 8 IV. Conclusion 9 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 10 1. Plaintiffs motion for relief under Rule 60 (ECF No. 218) be denied; 11 2. Upon reconsideration, the order denying plaintiff's motion to seal all medical records 12 || in this case (ECF No. 213) should be affirmed; and 13 3. The decision not to seal all of plaintiff's medical records should be deemed law of the 14 || case. 15 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 16 || assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days 17 || after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 18 || objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 19 | “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the 20 || objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The 21 || parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 22 || appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 23 || Dated: January 26, 2022 4 Foci) Aharon 25 KENDALL J. NE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 26 27 || Awilk1338.60b.rec 28