Urmancheev v. United States

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 A.S. URMANCHEEV, Case No.: 22-CV-1039 JLS (MMP) #A075117610, 12 ORDER DENYING WITHOUT Plaintiff, 13 PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION v. FOR PERMISSION TO FILE 14 SENSTIVE INFORMATION IN

15 PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT AND UNITED STATES, et al., MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF 16 Defendants. COUNSEL UNDER SEAL OR 17 REDACT

18 (ECF No. 37) 19

20 Presently before the Court is pro se Plaintiff A.S. Urmancheev’s Motion for 21 Permission to File Sensitive Information Contained in Plaintiff’s Complaint and Motion 22 for Appointment of Counsel Under Seal or Redact (“Mot.,” ECF No. 37). Plaintiff requests 23 that “this Court enter an order allowing Plaintiff to file an unredacted copy of the Motion 24 for Appointment of Counsel and Exhibit A under seal and to file a version of the motion 25 with redactions of sensitive health information on the public docket.” Mot. at 1. 26 Additionally, Plaintiff requests that he may “seal or redact the First Amended 27 Complaint (FAC) and Second Amended Complaint (SAC).” Id. Plaintiff then lodged his 28 proposed unredacted Motion for Appointment of Counsel. ECF No. 38. However, Plaintiff 1 does not provide proposed redacted versions of the documents he seeks to seal. See 2 generally Docket. For the following reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal 3 or Redact WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 4 LEGAL STANDARD 5 “[T]he courts of this country recognize a general right to inspect and copy public 6 records and documents, including judicial records and documents.” Nixon v. Warner 7 Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978). “Unless a particular court record is one 8 ‘traditionally kept secret,’ a ‘strong presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.” 9 Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing Foltz 10 v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). “The presumption 11 of access is ‘based on the need for federal courts, although independent—indeed, 12 particularly because they are independent—to have a measure of accountability and for the 13 public to have confidence in the administration of justice.’” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler 14 Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting United States v. Amodeo, 15 71 F.3d 1044, 1048 (2d Cir. 1995)). 16 A party seeking to seal a judicial record bears the burden of overcoming the strong 17 presumption of access. Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1130. The showing required to meet this burden 18 depends upon whether the documents to be sealed relate to a motion that is “more than 19 tangentially related to the merits of the case.” Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1102. When 20 the underlying motion is more than tangentially related to the merits, the “compelling 21 reasons” standard applies. Id. at 1096–98. When the underlying motion does not surpass 22 the tangential relevance threshold, the “good cause” standard applies. Id. 23 To show good cause, the moving party must make a “particularized 24 showing . . . with respect to any individual document,” San Jose Mercury News, Inc. v. 25 U. S. Dist. Ct., N. Dist. (San Jose), 187 F.3d 1096, 1103 (9th Cir. 1999), that “specific 26 prejudice or harm will result if no protective order is granted,” Phillips ex rel. Ests. of Byrd, 27 307 F.3d 1206, 1210–11 (9th Cir. 2002). “Simply mentioning a general category of 28 privilege, without any further elaboration or any specific linkage with the documents, does 1 not satisfy the burden.” Kamakama, 447 F.3d at 1184. Likewise, “[b]road allegations of 2 harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples or articulated reasoning,” are also insufficient. 3 Phillips, 307 F.3d at 1211. Further, if the movant wishes to seal an entire document, it 4 must show that the possibility of prejudice or harm would not be defeated by redacting 5 only the sensitive portions of said document. See In re Roman Cath. Archbishop, 6 661 F.3d 417, 425 (9th Cir. 2011); Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1137. 7 DISCUSSION 8 Plaintiff’s instant Motion to Seal or Redact involves documents implicating both the 9 “compelling reasons” and “good cause” standards. For one, “[a]n action’s complaint, and 10 its associated exhibits, are more than tangentially related to the merits of the case.” JBS 11 Packerland, Inc. v. Phillips Cattle Co., No. 24-CV-01299-BAS-MSB, 2024 WL 4427794 12 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 4, 2024) (citing Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1098). Thus, sealing or 13 redacting portions of such documents will require “compelling reasons.” But motions for 14 appointment of counsel are only tangentially related to the merits of the case, and thus will 15 only require a showing of “good cause.” Oravetz v. Parr, No. 319CV00530MMDWGC, 16 2020 WL 7625234 (D. Nev. Dec. 21, 2020) (finding plaintiff’s motion for appointment of 17 counsel “only tangentially related to the merits of the case”). 18 Nevertheless, the need to protect medical privacy qualifies under either standard. 19 See e.g., United States v. Smith, No. 120CR00253ADABAM2, 2023 WL 4305024 (E.D. 20 Cal. June 30, 2023) (recognizing sensitive and private medical information satisfies a 21 “compelling reason” to seal records); see also San Ramon Reg’l Med. Ctr., Inc. v. Principal 22 Life Ins. Co., No. C 10-02258 SBA, 2011 WL 89931, at *1 n.1 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 10, 2011). 23 But requests to seal must be narrowly tailored—a party may not seek to seal an entire 24 document where redaction would suffice. Apex.AI, Inc. v. Langmead, 25 No. 5:23-CV-02230-BLF, 2023 WL 4157629, at *1 (N.D. Cal. June 23, 2023) (granting a 26 request to seal where the moving party, rather than seek to seal declarations in their entirety, 27 identified specific paragraphs and exhibits that should be sealed). 28 Here, Plaintiff appears to seek to seal portions of the FAC, SAC, and Motion to 1 || Appoint Counsel along with Exhibit A, but has failed to provide a proposed redacted 2 ||version of such documents, so the Court cannot determine whether his requests are 3 || “narrowly tailored” to seal only sensitive and private medical information. 4 Accordingly, Plaintiffs Motion for Permission to File Documents Under Seal or 5 ||Redact (ECF No. 37) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to Plaintiff refiling his 6 Motion with accompanied redacted versions of any document that he seeks to file under 7 ||seal. The documents must be titled to show that it corresponds to an item filed under seal, 8 |le.g., “Redacted Copy of Sealed Declaration of John Smith in Support of Motion for 9 || Summary Judgment.” And Plaintiff should file the redacted document(s) simultaneously 10 || with a joint motion or ex parte application requesting that the confidential portions of the 11 |}document(s) be filed under seal and setting forth good cause for the request as to documents 12 || only tangentially related to the case (i.e., his Motion to Appoint Counsel), and compelling 13 ||reasons for documents more than tangentially related to the case (i.e., his operative 14 || Complaint). 15 Meanwhile, for the next thirty (30) days from the date of this Order, the Court will 16 || restrict viewing privileges of the publicly filed FAC (ECF No. 20) and SAC (ECE No. 29), 17 only the Parties and Court to mitigate any potential prejudice to Plaintiff due to the 18 || mistaken failure to provide proposed redacted documents. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 ||Dated: April 25, 2025 tt f te 21 on. Janis L. Sammartino 9 United States District Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28