Ferguson v. Horizon Lines, Inc. et al

Filing 89

ORDER by Judge Maria-Elena James denying 84 Motion to file under seal (cdnS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/4/2015)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

LORRAINE FERGUSON,

Case No. 11-cv-03391-MEJ

Plaintiff,
8

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT
PREJUDICE REQUEST TO FILE
DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL

v.
9
10

ANDREI A. TRETYAK, et al.,

Re: Dkt. No. 84

Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

On July 31, 2015, Plaintiff Lorraine Ferguson filed an “Administrative Motion for Sealing

14

Medical Records.” Dkt. No. 84. As Plaintiff’s motion does not comply with the requirements of

15

Civil Local Rule 79-5(d), it is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Further, given that Plaintiff has

16

informed the Court that Defendant Andrei A. Tretyak may be filing a motion to set aside default,

17

and the Court continued the default judgment motion filing deadline accordingly, Plaintiff is

18

advised the Court will not consider a motion to file documents under seal until such time as she

19

files a default judgment motion.

20

Further, if Plaintiff files a revised motion, she should be mindful of the “strong

21

presumption in favor of access” by the public to judicial records and documents accompanying

22

dispositive motions. Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178-79 (9th Cir.

23

2006) (citing Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). To

24

overcome this presumption, a “party must articulate compelling reasons supported by specific

25

fact[s].” Id. at 1178 (internal quotation and citation omitted); see also Apple, Inc. v. Samsung

26

Elecs. Co., 727 F.3d 1214, 1223 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (finding sealing appropriate where companies

27

“filed declarations from employees” that “explained the measures the two companies take to keep

28

their product-specific financial information confidential” and “the harm they would suffer if their

1

product-specific financial information were made public”). Indeed, such showing is required even

2

where “the dispositive motion, or its attachments, were previously filed under seal or protective

3

order.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179.

4

Thus, Plaintiff should be mindful that the Court will not grant a blanket sealing order but

5

will instead consider only “a limited amount of exceptionally sensitive information that truly

6

deserves protection” under the “compelling reasons” standard of Kamakana, outlined by page and

7

line number and including “specific factual findings” for each. See O’Connor v. Uber

8

Technologies, Inc., 2015 WL 355496, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 27, 2015). Plaintiff may seek to redact

9

certain portions of documents if she has compelling reasons, but not her entire “medical records.”

10

IT IS SO ORDERED.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14

Dated: August 4, 2015
______________________________________
MARIA-ELENA JAMES
United States Magistrate Judge

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2