Washington v. Essex et al

Filing 229

ORDER signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 02/08/2024 GRANTING 227 Request to Seal Exhibit C in Support of 226 Opposition. Defendant Essex shall send a pdf copy of Exhibit C via email to [e-mail] for filing under seal on the docket in this action.(Lopez, K)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

TRACYE BENARD WASHINGTON,

12

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

C. ESSEX, et al.,

15

No. 2:12-cv-03054-DAD-DB (PC)

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT ESSEX’S
UNOPPOSED REQUEST TO SEAL
(Doc. No. 227)
Defendants.

16
17

On February 2, 2024, defendant Craig Essex filed a notice of his request to seal Exhibit C

18

to the declaration of Seth A. Curtis filed in support of his opposition to plaintiff’s motion for

19

summary judgment. (Doc. No. 227.) In his request, defendant Essex explains that there are

20

compelling reasons sufficient to outweigh the public’s interest in disclosure of court records

21

because Exhibit C to the Curtis declaration consists of plaintiff’s medical records and contain

22

confidential information regarding plaintiff’s health and medical care. (Id. at 2; see also Doc.

23

Nos. 226-1 at 38–63; 226-2 at 1–4.) Plaintiff did not submit an opposition to defendant Essex’s

24

request to seal. For the reasons explained below, the defendant Essex’s request to seal Exhibit C

25

to the Curtis declaration will be granted.

26

All documents filed with the court are presumptively public. San Jose Mercury News,

27

Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Court, 187 F.3d 1096, 1103 (9th Cir. 1999) (“It is well-established that the fruits

28

of pretrial discovery are, in the absence of a court order to the contrary, presumptively public.”).
1

1

“Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records and

2

documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu,

3

447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589,

4

597 & n.7 (1978)). Where a party seeks to seal records attached to dispositive motions, like

5

defendant Essex’s opposition to plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment here, courts apply a

6

“compelling reasons” standard, under which:

7
8
9
10

the court must conscientiously balance the competing interests of
the public and the party who seeks to keep certain judicial records
secret. After considering these interests, if the court decides to seal
certain judicial records, it must base its decision on a compelling
reason and articulate the factual basis for its ruling, without relying
on hypothesis or conjecture.

11

Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178–79 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). The party

12

seeking to seal a judicial record bears the burden of meeting the “compelling reasons” standard.

13

Id. at 1178. “In general, ‘compelling reasons’ sufficient to . . . justify sealing court records exist

14

when such ‘court files might . . . become a vehicle for improper purposes,’ such as the use of

15

records to gratify private spite, promote public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release

16

trade secrets.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (quoting Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598). “The mere fact

17

that the production of records may lead to a litigant’s embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure

18

to further litigation will not, without more, compel the court to seal its records.” Id.

19

“Medical records contain private, confidential, and often sensitive information, and courts

20

often order medical records to be filed under seal.” United States v. Lopez-Perez, No. 1:14-cr-

21

0045-AWI, 2021 WL 809396, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 3, 2021); see also Pratt v. Gamboa, No. 17-

22

cv-04375-LHK, 2020 WL 8992141, at *2 (N.D. Cal. May 22, 2020) (noting that “medical records

23

are deemed confidential under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act” and that

24

“[c]ourts routinely conclude that the need to protect medical privacy qualifies as a compelling

25

reason for sealing records”) (internal quotation marks omitted) (citing cases); Johnsen v. Tambe,

26

No. 19-cv-141-TSZ-MLP, 2019 WL 4014256, at *2 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 26, 2019) (“find[ing] the

27

plaintiff’s privacy interest in his own medical records to be a sufficiently compelling reason to

28

seal the medical records themselves”). Here, too, the court concludes that defendant Essex has
2

1

shown that compelling reasons justify the sealing of Exhibit C to the Curtis declaration filed in

2

support of his opposition to plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment because that exhibit

3

consists of plaintiff’s confidential medical records.

4

Accordingly,

5

1.

Defendant Essex’s request to seal (Doc. No. 227) is granted;

6

2.

Exhibit C to the declaration of Seth A. Curtis filed in support of defendant Essex’s

7

opposition to plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment shall be filed under seal,

8

for access only by the court and the parties; and

9

3.

Defendant Essex shall send a pdf copy of Exhibit C to the Curtis declaration filed

10

in support of his opposition to plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment via email

11

to [e-mail] for filing under seal on the docket in this

12

action.

13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14

Dated:

February 8, 2024
DALE A. DROZD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3