Sanders v. Castaneda
This text of Sanders v. Castaneda (Sanders v. Castaneda) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Nevada primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA
3 * * *
4 Timothy Sanders, Case No. 2:22-cv-01373-APG-EJY
5 Plaintiff,
6 v. ORDER
7 Castaneda, et al.,
8 Defendants.
9 10 Pending before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Seal. ECF No. 67. The Motion seeks 11 permission to file Plaintiff’s medical records and Defendant Costello’s work records under seal. 12 Federal courts recognize a general right to public inspection of judicial records and 13 documents. Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal 14 citation omitted). The strong presumption of public access must be overcome by a party seeking 15 to seal a judicial record. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 16 2016) (citing Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178). This is a stringent standard, and a party must 17 demonstrate “‘a compelling reason and [articulate] a factual basis . . . without relying on hypothesis 18 or conjecture” to justify sealing court filed documents. Id. 1096-97. The “compelling reason” 19 standard applies to dispositive motions. Id. at 1100-01. 20 Medical privacy meets the compelling reason standard established in Kamakana. See, e.g., 21 San Ramon Regional Med. Ctr., Inc. v. Principal Life Ins. Co., 2011 WL89931, at *n. 1 (N.D. Cal. 22 Jan. 10, 2011); Abbey v. Hawaii Employers Mut. Ins. Co., 2010 WL4715793, at *1-2 (D.HI. Nov. 23 15, 2010); G. v. Hawaii, 2010 WL 267483, at *1-2 (D. Haw. June 25, 2010); Wilkins v. Ahern, 24 2010 WL3755654 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 24, 2010); Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 25 1122, 1136 (9th Cir. 2003). The Court further finds Defendant Costello’s work records are of a 26 sufficiently compelling and private nature that public disclosure is not warranted. 27 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Seal (ECF No. 67) 28 1 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that ECF No. 68 is and shall remain sealed. 2 DATED this 21st day of April, 2025. 3
4 ELAYNA J. YOUCHAH 5 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Sanders v. Castaneda, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sanders-v-castaneda-nvd-2025.