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 GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S Plaintiff, 13 MOTION FOR PERMISSION TO v. FILE SENSTIVE INFORMATION IN 14 PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED
15 COMPLAINT, SECOND AMENDED UNITED STATES, et al., COMPLAINT, MOTION FOR 16 Defendants. APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL, 17 AND PROSPECTIVE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL OR REDACT 18
19 (ECF No. 43) 20
21 Presently before the Court is pro se Plaintiff A.S. Urmancheev’s Amended Motion 22 for Permission to File Sensitive Information Contained in Plaintiff’s First Amended 23 Complaint, Second Amended Complaint, Motion for Appointment of Counsel and 24 Prospective Documents Under Seal or Redact (“Mot.,” ECF No. 43). Defendant did not 25 file an opposition. See generally Docket. Having considered the briefing and the law, the 26 Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion. 27 / / / 28 / / / 1 BACKGROUND 2 Plaintiff previously filed a Motion for Permission to File Sensitive Information 3 Contained in Plaintiff’s Complaint and Motion for Appointment of Counsel Under Seal or 4 Redact (ECF No. 37), along with a lodged proposed unredacted Motion for Appointment 5 of Counsel (ECF No. 38). Plaintiff sought to redact “sensitive health information” from 6 his Motion for Appointment of Counsel and Exhibit A thereto, as well as his First Amended 7 Complaint (“FAC”) and Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”). See generally ECF 8 No. 37. 9 On April 25, 2025, the Court denied without prejudice Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal and 10 Redact. See ECF No. 39 (“Order”). The Court acknowledged that the need to protect 11 medical privacy satisfies either a “compelling reason” or “good cause” to seal records. 12 Order at 3. However, as Plaintiff had not provided proposed redacted versions of the 13 documents he sought to seal, the Court was unable to determine whether his requests were 14 “narrowly tailored.” Id. at 3–4. The Order permitted Plaintiff to refile a motion with 15 attached redacted versions of any documents that seeks to file under seal. Id. at 4. In the 16 meantime, the Court restricted viewing privileges of the publicly filed FAC and SAC to 17 only the Parties and Court to mitigate any potential prejudice to Plaintiff due to the 18 mistaken failure to provide proposed redacted documents. Id. 19 On May 16, 2025, Plaintiff filed such renewed Motion along with redacted versions 20 of the previously submitted documents. See ECF Nos. 43, 43-1, 43-2, 43-3, 43-4. 21 LEGAL STANDARD 22 “[T]he courts of this country recognize a general right to inspect and copy public 23 records and documents, including judicial records and documents.” Nixon v. Warner 24 Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978). “Unless a particular court record is one 25 ‘traditionally kept secret,’ a ‘strong presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.” 26 Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing Foltz 27 v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). “The presumption 28 of access is ‘based on the need for federal courts, although independent—indeed, 1 particularly because they are independent—to have a measure of accountability and for the 2 public to have confidence in the administration of justice.’” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler 3 Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting United States v. Amodeo, 4 71 F.3d 1044, 1048 (2d Cir. 1995)). 5 A party seeking to seal a judicial record bears the burden of overcoming the strong 6 presumption of access. Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1130. The showing required to meet this burden 7 depends upon whether the documents to be sealed relate to a motion that is “more than 8 tangentially related to the merits of the case.” Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1102. When 9 the underlying motion is more than tangentially related to the merits, the “compelling 10 reasons” standard applies. Id. at 1096–98. When the underlying motion does not surpass 11 the tangential relevance threshold, the “good cause” standard applies. Id. 12 To show good cause, the moving party must make a “particularized 13 showing . . . with respect to any individual document,” San Jose Mercury News, Inc. v. 14 U. S. Dist. Ct., N. Dist. (San Jose), 187 F.3d 1096, 1103 (9th Cir. 1999), that “specific 15 prejudice or harm will result if no protective order is granted,” Phillips ex rel. Ests. of Byrd, 16 307 F.3d 1206, 1210–11 (9th Cir. 2002). “Simply mentioning a general category of 17 privilege, without any further elaboration or any specific linkage with the documents, does 18 not satisfy the burden.” Kamakama, 447 F.3d at 1184. Likewise, “[b]road allegations of 19 harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples or articulated reasoning,” are also insufficient. 20 Phillips, 307 F.3d at 1211. Further, if the movant wishes to seal an entire document, it 21 must show that the possibility of prejudice or harm would not be defeated by redacting 22 only the sensitive portions of said document. See In re Roman Cath. Archbishop, 23 661 F.3d 417, 425 (9th Cir. 2011); Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1137. 24 DISCUSSION 25 Here, Plaintiff requests the Court redact portions of his Motion for Appointment of 26 Counsel that discuss his medical and mental health condition. He indicates that his Motion 27 for Appointment of Counsel and Exhibit A attached thereto in support (ECF No. 38), 28 disclose “protected sensitive health information that his medical doctor agreed to provide 1 under HIPAA.” Mot. at 2. Per Plaintiff, Exhibit A is a letter “where Dr. Riccio describes 2 [P]laintiff’s illness in detail including symptoms, medication and recommendations.” Id. 3 Plaintiff contends that an “attempt to redact this declaration, permeated with Plaintiff’s 4 health information, will be futile, therefore Plaintiff seeks to seal the Exhibit A entirely.” 5 Id. Plaintiff also contends that the SAC and FAC also contain his “health information of 6 sensitive nature” similar to that of the Motion for Appointment of Counsel. Id. Plaintiff 7 indicates if “disclosed to the wrong parties, this information could result in problems with 8 prospective employment, insurance, embarrassment and other unfavorable treatment.” Id. 9 The Court finds that the concerns raised by Plaintiff are good cause justifying the 10 redaction of medical information in the Motion for Appointment of Counsel, and the 11 redaction of the entirety of Exhibit A, as presented by Plaintiff in the instant Motion. The 12 Court finds that Plaintiff has also demonstrated compelling reasons to redact portions of 13 the FAC and SAC. See e.g., United States v. Smith, No. 120CR00253ADABAM2, 14 2023 WL 4305024, at *2 (E.D. Cal. June 30, 2023) (recognizing sensitive and private 15 medical information satisfies a “compelling reason” to seal records); see also San Ramon 16 Reg’l Med. Ctr., Inc. v. Principal Life Ins. Co., No. C 10-02258 SBA, 2011 WL 89931, 17 at *1 n.1 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 10, 2011). Further, the Court finds that the narrowly tailored 18 redactions provide a suitable balance between the public’s right to inspect judicial records 19 and Plaintiff’s legitimate interest in his medical privacy. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS 20 Plaintiff’s Motion (ECF No. 43) as to the redacted portions of the documents below: 21 1. Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel (ECF No. 43-1); 22 2. Exhibit A in Support of Motion for Appointment of Counsel (ECF No. 43-2); 23 3.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
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 GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S Plaintiff, 13 MOTION FOR PERMISSION TO v. FILE SENSTIVE INFORMATION IN 14 PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED
15 COMPLAINT, SECOND AMENDED UNITED STATES, et al., COMPLAINT, MOTION FOR 16 Defendants. APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL, 17 AND PROSPECTIVE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL OR REDACT 18
19 (ECF No. 43) 20
21 Presently before the Court is pro se Plaintiff A.S. Urmancheev’s Amended Motion 22 for Permission to File Sensitive Information Contained in Plaintiff’s First Amended 23 Complaint, Second Amended Complaint, Motion for Appointment of Counsel and 24 Prospective Documents Under Seal or Redact (“Mot.,” ECF No. 43). Defendant did not 25 file an opposition. See generally Docket. Having considered the briefing and the law, the 26 Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion. 27 / / / 28 / / / 1 BACKGROUND 2 Plaintiff previously filed a Motion for Permission to File Sensitive Information 3 Contained in Plaintiff’s Complaint and Motion for Appointment of Counsel Under Seal or 4 Redact (ECF No. 37), along with a lodged proposed unredacted Motion for Appointment 5 of Counsel (ECF No. 38). Plaintiff sought to redact “sensitive health information” from 6 his Motion for Appointment of Counsel and Exhibit A thereto, as well as his First Amended 7 Complaint (“FAC”) and Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”). See generally ECF 8 No. 37. 9 On April 25, 2025, the Court denied without prejudice Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal and 10 Redact. See ECF No. 39 (“Order”). The Court acknowledged that the need to protect 11 medical privacy satisfies either a “compelling reason” or “good cause” to seal records. 12 Order at 3. However, as Plaintiff had not provided proposed redacted versions of the 13 documents he sought to seal, the Court was unable to determine whether his requests were 14 “narrowly tailored.” Id. at 3–4. The Order permitted Plaintiff to refile a motion with 15 attached redacted versions of any documents that seeks to file under seal. Id. at 4. In the 16 meantime, the Court restricted viewing privileges of the publicly filed FAC and SAC to 17 only the Parties and Court to mitigate any potential prejudice to Plaintiff due to the 18 mistaken failure to provide proposed redacted documents. Id. 19 On May 16, 2025, Plaintiff filed such renewed Motion along with redacted versions 20 of the previously submitted documents. See ECF Nos. 43, 43-1, 43-2, 43-3, 43-4. 21 LEGAL STANDARD 22 “[T]he courts of this country recognize a general right to inspect and copy public 23 records and documents, including judicial records and documents.” Nixon v. Warner 24 Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978). “Unless a particular court record is one 25 ‘traditionally kept secret,’ a ‘strong presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.” 26 Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing Foltz 27 v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). “The presumption 28 of access is ‘based on the need for federal courts, although independent—indeed, 1 particularly because they are independent—to have a measure of accountability and for the 2 public to have confidence in the administration of justice.’” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler 3 Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting United States v. Amodeo, 4 71 F.3d 1044, 1048 (2d Cir. 1995)). 5 A party seeking to seal a judicial record bears the burden of overcoming the strong 6 presumption of access. Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1130. The showing required to meet this burden 7 depends upon whether the documents to be sealed relate to a motion that is “more than 8 tangentially related to the merits of the case.” Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1102. When 9 the underlying motion is more than tangentially related to the merits, the “compelling 10 reasons” standard applies. Id. at 1096–98. When the underlying motion does not surpass 11 the tangential relevance threshold, the “good cause” standard applies. Id. 12 To show good cause, the moving party must make a “particularized 13 showing . . . with respect to any individual document,” San Jose Mercury News, Inc. v. 14 U. S. Dist. Ct., N. Dist. (San Jose), 187 F.3d 1096, 1103 (9th Cir. 1999), that “specific 15 prejudice or harm will result if no protective order is granted,” Phillips ex rel. Ests. of Byrd, 16 307 F.3d 1206, 1210–11 (9th Cir. 2002). “Simply mentioning a general category of 17 privilege, without any further elaboration or any specific linkage with the documents, does 18 not satisfy the burden.” Kamakama, 447 F.3d at 1184. Likewise, “[b]road allegations of 19 harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples or articulated reasoning,” are also insufficient. 20 Phillips, 307 F.3d at 1211. Further, if the movant wishes to seal an entire document, it 21 must show that the possibility of prejudice or harm would not be defeated by redacting 22 only the sensitive portions of said document. See In re Roman Cath. Archbishop, 23 661 F.3d 417, 425 (9th Cir. 2011); Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1137. 24 DISCUSSION 25 Here, Plaintiff requests the Court redact portions of his Motion for Appointment of 26 Counsel that discuss his medical and mental health condition. He indicates that his Motion 27 for Appointment of Counsel and Exhibit A attached thereto in support (ECF No. 38), 28 disclose “protected sensitive health information that his medical doctor agreed to provide 1 under HIPAA.” Mot. at 2. Per Plaintiff, Exhibit A is a letter “where Dr. Riccio describes 2 [P]laintiff’s illness in detail including symptoms, medication and recommendations.” Id. 3 Plaintiff contends that an “attempt to redact this declaration, permeated with Plaintiff’s 4 health information, will be futile, therefore Plaintiff seeks to seal the Exhibit A entirely.” 5 Id. Plaintiff also contends that the SAC and FAC also contain his “health information of 6 sensitive nature” similar to that of the Motion for Appointment of Counsel. Id. Plaintiff 7 indicates if “disclosed to the wrong parties, this information could result in problems with 8 prospective employment, insurance, embarrassment and other unfavorable treatment.” Id. 9 The Court finds that the concerns raised by Plaintiff are good cause justifying the 10 redaction of medical information in the Motion for Appointment of Counsel, and the 11 redaction of the entirety of Exhibit A, as presented by Plaintiff in the instant Motion. The 12 Court finds that Plaintiff has also demonstrated compelling reasons to redact portions of 13 the FAC and SAC. See e.g., United States v. Smith, No. 120CR00253ADABAM2, 14 2023 WL 4305024, at *2 (E.D. Cal. June 30, 2023) (recognizing sensitive and private 15 medical information satisfies a “compelling reason” to seal records); see also San Ramon 16 Reg’l Med. Ctr., Inc. v. Principal Life Ins. Co., No. C 10-02258 SBA, 2011 WL 89931, 17 at *1 n.1 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 10, 2011). Further, the Court finds that the narrowly tailored 18 redactions provide a suitable balance between the public’s right to inspect judicial records 19 and Plaintiff’s legitimate interest in his medical privacy. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS 20 Plaintiff’s Motion (ECF No. 43) as to the redacted portions of the documents below: 21 1. Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel (ECF No. 43-1); 22 2. Exhibit A in Support of Motion for Appointment of Counsel (ECF No. 43-2); 23 3. Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 43-3); 24 4. First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 43-4). 25 The Clerk of Court SHALL FILE the lodged unredacted copy of Plaintiff’s Motion 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 / / / 1 || for Appointment of Counsel and Exhibit A (ECF No. 38), and Plaintiffs publicly filed 2 || First and Second Amended Complaints (ECF Nos. 20, 29) under seal. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 ||Dated: May 21, 2025 tt 5 jen Janis L. Sammartino 6 United States District Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 5