Scott v. Quigley

Opinion

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

4 JAMES EDWARD SCOTT, III, Case No. 3:23-cv-00264-ART-CLB

5 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO SEAL

6 v. [ECF No. 24]

7 QUIGLEY, et al.,

8 Defendants. 9 Before the Court is Defendants’ motion for leave to file medical records under seal 10 in support of the motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 24.) No opposition was filed. 11 “The courts of this country recognize a general right to inspect and copy public 12 records and documents, including judicial records and documents.” Courthouse News 13 Serv. v. Planet, 947 F.3d 581, 591 (9th Cir. 2020) (quoting Courthouse News Serv. v. 14 Brown, 908 F.3d 1063, 1069 (7th Cir. 2018)). Certain documents are exceptions to this 15 right and are generally kept secret for policy reasons, including grand jury transcripts and 16 warrant materials in a pre-indictment investigation. Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 17 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). 18 If a party seeks to file a document under seal, there are two possible standards the 19 party must address: the compelling reasons standard or the good cause standard. See 20 Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096-97 (9th Cir. 2016). The 21 choice between the two standards depends on whether the documents proposed for 22 23 sealing accompany a motion that is “more than tangentially related” to the merits of the 24 case. Id. at 1099. If it is more than tangentially related, the compelling reasons standard 25 applies. If not, the good cause standard applies. Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1102. 26 Here, Defendants seek to file exhibits under seal in connection with the motion for 27 summary judgment, which is “more than tangentially related” to the merits of a case. 28 Therefore, the compelling reasons standard applies. 1 Under the compelling reasons standard, “a court may seal records only when it finds ‘a compelling reason and articulate[s] the factual basis for its ruling, without relying on hypothesis or conjecture.” United States v. Carpenter, 923 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2019) (quoting Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1096-97) (alteration in original). Finding S| a compelling reason is “best left to the sound discretion” of the Court. Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1097 (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commce’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 599 (1978)). This Court, and others within the Ninth Circuit, have recognized that the need to 8 protect medical privacy qualifies as a “compelling reason” for sealing records, since 9 medical records contain sensitive and private information about a person’s health. See, 10 e.g., Spahr v. Med. Dir. Ely State Prison, No. 3:19-CV-0267-MMD-CLB, 2020 WL 137459, " at *2 (D. Nev. Jan. 10, 2020); Sapp v. Ada Cnty. Med. Dep’t, No. 1:15-CV-00594-BLW, 2018 WL 3613978, at *6 (D. Idaho July 27, 2018); Karpenski v. Am. Gen. Life Companies, LLC, No. 2:12-CV-01569RSM, 2013 WL 5588312, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 9, 2013). While certain aspects of a party’s medical condition may be at issue in certain types of actions, 16 that does not mean that all medical records filed in connection with a motion (which often 47 contain unrelated medical information) must be broadcast to the public. In other words, 18 the party’s interest in keeping sensitive health information confidential outweighs the 49 public’s need for direct access to the medical records. 20 Here, the referenced exhibit contains Plaintiffs sensitive health information, 24 | medical history, and treatment records. Balancing the need for the public’s access to 22 | information regarding Plaintiff's medical history, treatment, and condition against the need to maintain the confidentiality of these medical records weighs in favor of sealing these 24| exhibits. Therefore, Defendants’ motion to seal, (ECF No. 24), is GRANTED. 25 DATED: March 5, 2025 26 ‘ 27 28 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE