U.S. Bank National Association v. Sepehry-Fard

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: February 15, 2022
• Docket: 5:22-cv-00628
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 SAN JOSE DIVISION 6 7 U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Case No. 22-cv-00628-BLF

8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING 9 v. ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL; DENYING EX PARTE 10 FAREED SEPEHRY-FARD©, APPLICATION FOR STAY OF PROCEEDINGS 11 Defendant. [Re: ECF No. 27] 12 13 Before the Court is Defendant Fareed Sepehry-Fard©’s (1) administrative motion to file 14 documents under seal and (2) ex parte application for stay of all proceedings. See ECF No. 27. This 15 is an unlawful detainer action removed from Santa Clara County Superior Court. Defendant seeks 16 to seal his medical records from recent hospital visits indicating various medical issues. See Sealing 17 Motion, ECF No. 27. Plaintiff does not oppose, and the time to file a response to Defendant’s 18 administrative motion has passed. See Civ. L.R. 7-11. Defendant further seeks to stay these 19 proceedings for a minimum of six months so that his medical condition can stabilize. See Ex Parte 20 Application, ECF No. 27. Defendant argues that deliberate indifference to serious medical needs 21 violates the Eighth Amendment’s proscription against cruel and unusual punishment. See id. at 5. 22 First, the Court considers Defendant’s sealing motion. See ECF No. 27. Defendant seeks 23 to seal medical records. Parties seeking to seal judicial records bear the burden of showing 24 “compelling reasons” that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring 25 disclosure. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1099 (9th Cir. 2016); see 26 Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178–79 (9th Cir. 2006). Courts routinely 27 find that there are compelling reasons to seal confidential medical records under seal. See, e.g., 1 (collecting cases). Good cause appearing, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s sealing motion. 2 Second, the Court considers Defendant’s ex parte application to stay the proceedings. See 3 || ECF No. 27. Under Civil Local Rule 7-10, a party may file an ex parte motion “only if a statute, 4 || Federal Rule, local rule, or Standing Order authorizes ex parte filing,” a citation to which must be 5 || included in the ex parte motion. Civ. L.R. 7-10. Defendant has not provided any such citation in 6 || his ex parte application. See ECF No. 27. Further, courts generally consider the following three 7 factors when determining whether to stay a case: “[1] the possible damage which may result from 8 the granting of the stay, [2] the hardship or inequity which a party must suffer in being required to 9 || go forward, and [3] the orderly course of justice measured in terms of the simplifying or 10 || complicating the issues, proof, and questions of law which could be expected to result from the 11 stay.” CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir. 1962) (citing Landis v. No. American Co., 12 299 U.S. 248, 254-55 (1936)). Defendant removed this case to federal court for the third time after 13 two prior failed attempts and immediately sought a stay. And Defendant has had the ability to file 14 || two other motions on February 8, 2022 (ECF Nos. 22, 23) evidencing his fitness to respond to the 3 15 pending motion to remand. The Court finds that in these circumstances, the possible prejudice to a 16 || Plaintiff from a stay and the orderly course of justice strongly favors denying Defendant’s stay 3 17 request. While the Court sympathizes with Defendant given his health condition, the Court does 18 not find a stay warranted here. 19 For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 20 1. Defendant’s sealing motion is GRANTED; and 21 2. Defendant’s ex parte application to stay the proceedings is DENIED. 22 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 25 || Dated: February 15, 2022 kom Lh han tn) 26 V MAMAN BETH LABSON FREEMAN 27 United States District Judge 28