Salgado v. Iqvia, Inc.

Opinion

5 6

7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10 CINDY SALGADO, Case No. 18-cv-2785-BAS-WVG 11 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING JOINT 12 MOTION TO SEAL PREVIOUSLY FILED 13 v. DOCUMENTS

14 IQVIA, INC., et al., [ECF No. 41]

15 Defendants.

16 17 Plaintiff Cindy Salgado and Defendants Iqvia, Inc. and Quintiles Commercial 18 US, Inc. filed cross-motions for summary judgment. As attachments to their motion, 19 Defendants included various exhibits. A couple months after the motions were filed, 20 Plaintiff moved ex parte to seal three of those exhibits. (ECF No. 41.) The exhibits 21 are: ECF 34-8 (Dr. Carroll’s Report), ECF 34-19 (Plaintiff’s Medical Record), and 22 ECF 34-21 (June 21, 2018 Letter from Unum to Plaintiff). 23 The Court denied without prejudice the ex parte motion to seal because it 24 found that at least portions of the three exhibits are not sealable because Plaintiff has 25 put certain conditions and communications with her doctors at issue in this case. 26 (ECF No. 42.) Further, Plaintiff had not provided the Court with redacted versions 27 of the exhibits showing which segments of the exhibits she believed to be sealable. 1 redacted versions of the exhibits to their motion. 2 I. LEGAL STANDARD 3 “[T]he courts of this country recognize a general right to inspect and copy 4 public records and documents, including judicial records and documents.” Nixon v. 5 Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978). “Unless a particular court record 6 is one ‘traditionally kept secret,’ a ‘strong presumption in favor of access’ is the 7 starting point.” Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 8 2006) (citing Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 9 2003)). “The presumption of access is ‘based on the need for federal courts, although 10 independent—indeed, particularly because they are independent—to have a measure 11 of accountability and for the public to have confidence in the administration of 12 justice.’” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 13 2016) (quoting United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1048 (2d Cir. 1995)). 14 A party seeking to seal a judicial record bears the burden of overcoming the 15 strong presumption of access. Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1135. The showing required to 16 meet this burden depends upon whether the documents to be sealed relate to a motion 17 that is “more than tangentially related to the merits of the case.” Ctr. for Auto Safety, 18 809 F.3d at 1102. When the underlying motion is more than tangentially related to 19 the merits, the “compelling reasons” standard applies. Id. at 1096–98. When the 20 underlying motion does not surpass the tangential relevance threshold, the “good 21 cause” standard applies. Id. 22 “In general, ‘compelling reasons’ sufficient to outweigh the public’s interest 23 in disclosure and justify sealing court records exists when such ‘court files might 24 have become a vehicle for improper purposes,’ such as the use of records to gratify 25 private spite, promote public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade 26 secrets.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (quoting Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598). However, 27 “[t]he mere fact that the production of records may lead to a litigant’s embarrassment, | court to seal its records.” Jd. (citing Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1136). 2 □□□ ANALYSIS 3 Plaintiff seeks to seal certain medical records, history, and information. 4 ||Because the parties’ motions for summary judgment are more than tangentially 5 ||related to the merits of the case, the compelling reasons standard applies in 6 || determining whether to grant the motion to seal. 7 Courts throughout the Ninth Circuit have recognized that the need to protect 8 medical privacy generally qualifies as a compelling reason to seal records. Weisberg 9 ||v. Takeda Pharm. U.S.A., Inc., No. CV 18-784 PA (JCX), 2018 WL 6252458, at *2 10 ||(C.D. Cal. July 3, 2018); Racies v. Quincy Bioscience, LLC, No. 15-cv-00292-HSG, 11 ||2017 WL 6405612, at *2, (N.D. Cal. Dec. 15, 2017); Carmichael v. Aranas, No. 12 || 3:17-cv-00025-MMD-WGC, 2017 WL 955183, at *2 (D. Nev. Mar. 10, 2017). The 13 || Court previously expressed concerns about sealing information that Plaintiff had put 14 |lat issue in this case. In the renewed motion, Plaintiff seeks to seal limited 15 ||information. Upon review of the exhibits, the Court finds the redacted information 16 ||constitutes private medical and personal information of Plaintiff and others that 17 seems irrelevant to the issues of the case. See Carmichael, 2017 WL 955183, at *2 18 ||(holding even where a plaintiff has put her medical history at issue, “that does not 19 ||mean that the entirety of [her] medical records filed in connection with a motion 20 || (which frequently contain records that pertain to unrelated medical information) need 21 || be unnecessarily broadcast to the public”). 22 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the Joint Motion to Seal. The Clerk is 23 |/instructed to seal the previously filed documents: ECF 34-8, ECF 34-19, and ECF 24 34-21. 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 f □ 27 || DATED: March 20, 2020 ( ill □□ □□ Ayphaads 28 United States District Judge