Simmons v. Mischel

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: September 27, 2019
• Docket: 5:18-cv-02193
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 SAN JOSE DIVISION 7 8 JOYCE MARIE SIMMONS, Case No.18-cv-02193-VKD

9 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING 10 v. ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL 11 T. MISCHEL, et al., Re: Dkt. No. 31 Defendants. 12

13 Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint or, in the alternative, for summary judgment. 14 Dkt. No. 29. In connection with that motion, defendants filed an administrative motion to seal 15 Attachment 11 of the declaration of Jacquelyn Herrera (“the Herrera declaration”) pursuant to 16 Civil Local Rule 79-5. Dkt. No. 31. Plaintiff Joyce Simmons did not file a response to 17 defendants’ motion to seal. 18 There is a strong presumption in favor of access by the public to judicial records and 19 documents accompanying dispositive motions that can be overcome only by a showing of 20 “compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings.” Kamakana v. City & Cty. of 21 Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178–79 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 22 However, the presumption does not apply equally to a motion addressing matters that are only 23 “tangentially related to the merits of a case.” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 24 1092, 1101 (9th Cir. 2016), cert. denied sub nom. FCA U.S. LLC v. Ctr. for Auto Safety, 137 S. Ct. 25 38 (2016). A litigant seeking to seal documents or information in connection with such a motion 26 must meet the lower “good cause” standard of Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 27 Id. at 1098–99; Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179–80. 1 their dispositive motion. The material to be sealed is related to the merits of the case, and the 2 || Court therefore applies the “compelling reasons” standard. The material sought to be sealed 3 constitutes Ms. Simmons’s medical records, including information not related to the injuries she 4 || has asserted in the complaint. The Court finds this to be a compelling reason to seal Attachment 5 11 to the Herrera declaration and therefore grants defendants’ motion. 6 The Court further notes that defendants’ motion to seal did not comply with Civil Local 7 Rule 79-5. Civil Local Rule 79-5(d)(1)(D) requires a movant to file with its administrative motion 8 an unredacted copy of the document sought to be filed under seal. Defendants did not file 9 Attachment 11 on the docket, but rather provided only a physical copy of Attachment 11 to the 10 || Court. Defendants are directed to file an unredacted version of Attachment 11 under seal! in ll compliance with Civil Local Rule 79-5(d)(1)(D) by October 4, 2019. a 12 IT IS SO ORDERED.

13 Dated: September 27, 2019

2 VIRGINIA K. DEMARCH a 16 United States Magistrate Judge

= 17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 ' Directions for filing documents under seal are available on the Court’s website at 28 https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/ecf/underseal.