Scott v. Fukagawa

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 * * *

4 JAMES EDWARD SCOTT, III, Case No. 3:23-CV-00254-MMD-CLB

5 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO SEAL

6 v. [ECF No. 44]

7 GAYLENE FUKAGAWA, et al.,

8 Defendants. 9

10 Before the Court is Defendants’ motion for leave to file Exhibits D, F, G and H 11 under seal in support of their motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 44.) The exhibits 12 at issue consist of Plaintiff’s medical records. (Id.) 13 “The courts of this country recognize a general right to inspect and copy public 14 records and documents, including judicial records and documents.” Courthouse News 15 Serv. v. Planet, 947 F.3d 581, 591 (9th Cir. 2020) (quoting Courthouse News Serv. v. 16 Brown, 908 F.3d 1063, 1069 (7th Cir. 2018)). Certain documents are exceptions to this 17 right and are generally kept secret for policy reasons, including grand jury transcripts and 18 warrant materials in a pre-indictment investigation. Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 19 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). 20 If a party seeks to file a document under seal, there are two possible standards the 21 party must address: the compelling reasons standard or the good cause standard. See 22 Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096-97 (9th Cir. 2016). The 23 choice between the two standards depends on whether the documents proposed for 24 sealing accompany a motion that is “more than tangentially related” to the merits of the 25 26 case. Id. at 1099. If it is more than tangentially related, the compelling reasons standard 27 applies. If not, the good cause standard applies. Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1102. 28 Here, Defendants seek to file exhibits under seal in connection with their motion 1 for summary judgment, which are “more than tangentially related” to the merits of a case. 2 Therefore, the compelling reasons standard applies. 3 Under the compelling reasons standard, “a court may seal records only when it 4 finds ‘a compelling reason and articulate[s] the factual basis for its ruling, without relying 5 on hypothesis or conjecture.’” United States v. Carpenter, 923 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 6 2019) (quoting Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1096-97) (alteration in original). Finding 7 a compelling reason is “best left to the sound discretion” of the Court. Ctr. for Auto Safety, 8 809 F.3d at 1097 (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 599 (1978)). 9 This Court, and others within the Ninth Circuit, have recognized that the need to 10 protect medical privacy qualifies as a “compelling reason” for sealing records, since 11 medical records contain sensitive and private information about a person’s health. See, 12 e.g., Spahr v. Med. Dir. Ely State Prison, No. 3:19-CV-0267-MMD-CLB, 2020 WL 137459, 13 at *2 (D. Nev. Jan. 10, 2020); Sapp v. Ada Cnty. Med. Dep’t, No. 1:15-CV-00594-BLW, 14 2018 WL 3613978, at *6 (D. Idaho July 27, 2018); Karpenski v. Am. Gen. Life Companies, 15 LLC, No. 2:12-CV-01569RSM, 2013 WL 5588312, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 9, 2013). While 16 certain aspects of a party’s medical condition may be at issue in certain types of actions, 17 that does not mean that all medical records filed in connection with a motion (which often 18 contain unrelated medical information) must be broadcast to the public. In other words, 19 the party’s interest in keeping sensitive health information confidential outweighs the 20 21 public’s need for direct access to medical records. 22 Here, the referenced exhibits contain information related to Plaintiff’s sensitive 23 health information, medical history, and care. Balancing the need for the public’s access 24 to information regarding these medical records against the need to

25 /// 26 /// 27 28 1| maintain the confidentiality of these records weighs in favor of sealing the exhibits. 2| Therefore, Defendants’ motion to seal, (ECF No. 44), is GRANTED. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 DATED: March 18, 2025 ‘ , . 5 6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28