Amy Roth et al v. CHA Hollywood Medical Center, L.P. et al

Filing 57

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS APPLICATION TO FILE EXHIBITS UNDER SEAL IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION 56 by Judge Otis D. Wright, II. (lc). Modified on 9/26/2013 (lc).

1

O

2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

AMY ROTH, SHANA EKIN, as
individuals and on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated,
v.

Plaintiffs,

CHA HOLLYWOOD MEDICAL
CENTER, L.P., d/b/a CHA Hollywood
Presbyterian Medical Center and
Hollywood Presbyterian Medical Center,
and CHS HEALTHCARE
MANAGEMENT, L.L.C.,

Case No. 2:12-cv-07559-ODW(SHx)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
APPLICATION TO FILE EXHIBITS
UNDER SEAL IN SUPPORT OF
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR CLASS
CERTIFICATION [56]

Defendants.

19

On September 25, 2013, Plaintiff Shana Ekin filed an Application to File

20

Exhibits Under Seal in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification. (ECF

21

No. 56.) Ekin endeavors to seal three exhibits, which consist of Defendant CHA

22

Hollywood Medical Center’s meal- and rest-break policy; assignment sheets, break

23

schedules, and documentation forms from various nursing departments; and

24

deposition excerpts from Hollywood Medical Center’s human-resources director

25

discussing these documents. (Appl. 2.) Hollywood Medical Center produced these

26

documents during discovery and denominated them “Confidential” under the terms of

27

the parties’ stipulated protective order. The parties had entered into this protective

28

order on December 10, 2012, while the case was still before the Los Angeles County

1

Superior Court. (Appl. Ex. A.) Judge Kleinfeld of the Superior Court had previously

2

granted Defendants’ motion to file under seal.

3

The United States Supreme Court has recognized that it is “clear that the courts

4

of this country recognize a general right to inspect and copy public records and

5

documents, including judicial records and documents.” Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns,

6

Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978) (footnote omitted). Similarly, the Ninth Circuit stated

7

that there is a “strong presumption in favor of access to court records.” Foltz v. State

8

Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003). In order to override

9

this weighty presumption, a party must demonstrate “sufficiently compelling reasons”

10

for sealing the documents. Id. Any request “must articulate compelling reasons

11

supported by specific factual findings” why each individual exhibit merits filing under

12

seal. Kamakana v. City & Cnty of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). A

13

court will then balance the public’s interest in accessing these documents with the

14

confidentiality and potential for misuse of the information. Hagestad v. Tragesser, 49

15

F.3d 1430, 1434 (9th Cir. 1995).

16

The Court has read each page of the documents Ekin seeks to file under seal

17

and has found no private information about individuals or anything that could be

18

construed as proprietary or a trade secret. The Court is also aware that it was really

19

Hollywood Medical Center that designated these documents as confidential, not Ekin.

20

The hospital cannot seriously contend that its rest- and meal-break policy is

21

confidential when the policy itself makes clear that it is based on state and federal law.

22

Further, Hollywood Medical Center already redacted all patient identifying

23

information from Exhibit 5. So now the only identifying information that remains in

24

all three exhibits is the employees’ names. But names alone are not private enough to

25

lock tight the Court’s files and cut off the public’s access to these documents. The

26

courts of this nation remain open for any person—litigant or otherwise—to enter its

27

halls, inspect its records, and see justice being done. The Court finds that neither

28

///

2

1

party in this case has carried its burden of demonstrating sufficiently compelling

2

reasons for denying the public that access.

3
4
5

The Court accordingly DENIES Plaintiff’s Application to File Exhibits Under
Seal. (ECF No. 56.)
IT IS SO ORDERED.

6
7

September 26, 2012

8
9
10

____________________________________
OTIS D. WRIGHT, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3