Bettencourt v. Parks et al

Filing 93

ORDER GRANTING 92 Defendants' Request to Seal Records, signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 10/21/2021. Plaintiff's opposition or statement of non-opposition to 91 Defendants' motion for summary judgment remains due on or before 11/8/2021. (Rivera, O)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

GARY RAY BETTENCOURT,

11

Plaintiff,

12

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’
REQUEST TO SEAL RECORDS

v.

13

Case No. 1:16-cv-00150-DAD-BAM (PC)

PARKER, et al.,

14

(ECF No. 92)
Defendants.

15
16

Plaintiff Gary Ray Bettencourt (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in

17

forma pauperis in this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on

18

Plaintiff’s claims of deliberate indifference in violation of the Eighth Amendment against

19

Defendant Crooks for pulling two teeth that did not need to be pulled, and against Defendants

20

Parker and Guzman for filing down six healthy teeth with a dental tool used for drilling cavities.

21

On October 15, 2021, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, together with a

22

request to seal approximately 90 pages of Plaintiff’s redacted dental records filed in support of

23

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. (ECF Nos. 91, 92.) Although Plaintiff has not yet

24

had the opportunity to respond to the request to seal, the Court finds a response unnecessary, and

25

the request to seal is deemed submitted. Local Rule 230(l).

26

Defendants explain that the dental records are filed in support of their motion for

27

summary judgment, which was filed contemporaneously with the request to seal. The records

28

sought to be sealed are 87 pages of dental records, along with three pages confirming that the
1

1

records are authentic and that Plaintiff has agreed to release the records. The records are

2

exclusively related to Plaintiff’s dental treatment, and privacy concerns exist in relation to the

3

records given they relate to Plaintiff’s dental care. Furthermore, public access to the records risks

4

interfering with the ability of prison dental staff to confidently provide medical services, due to

5

unmerited criticism by those gaining access to Plaintiff’s records. Defendants therefore request

6

that the Court seal the records, offered as the entirety of Exhibit C to the Declaration of Deputy

7

Attorney General Jason R. Cale, filed in support of Defendants’ motion for summary judgment.

8

Filings in cases such as this are a matter of public record absent compelling justification.

9

United States v. Stoterau, 524 F.3d 988, 1012 (9th Cir. 2008). However, “[t]his court, and others

10

within the Ninth Circuit, have recognized that the need to protect medical privacy qualifies as a

11

‘compelling reason’ for sealing records.” Chester v. King, 2019 WL 5420213, at *2 (E.D. Cal.

12

Oct. 23, 2019).

13

The Court has conducted an in camera review of the documents and pages at issue and

14

determined that they contain Plaintiff’s medical and dental records. As such, the Court finds

15

good cause and a compelling reason for sealing the records, and Defendants’ request is granted.

16

The unredacted materials will be filed and maintained under seal.

17

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

18

1. Defendants’ request for redacted dental records filed with the motion for summary

19

judgment to be lodged under seal, (ECF No. 92), is GRANTED;

20

2. The submitted redacted dental records shall be filed and maintained under seal; and

21

3. Plaintiff’s opposition or statement of non-opposition to Defendants’ motion for

22

summary judgment remains due on or before November 8, 2021.

23
24
25
26

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Barbara

October 21, 2021

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

27
28
2