Lawrence v. City and County of San Francisco et al

Filing 108

ORDER by Judge Maria-Elena James denying as moot 106 Motion to remove documents; granting 107 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal. (mejlc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/3/2017)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

EMIL LAWRENCE,

Case No. 14-cv-00820-MEJ

Plaintiff,
8

ORDER RE: ADMINISTRATIVE
MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL

v.
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN
FRANCISCO, et al.,

Re: Dkt. No. 107

Defendants.

12
13

On March 3, 2017, Defendant the City and County of San Francisco, Christina Peters, and

14

Daniel Bonnel (collectively, “Defendants”) filed an administrative motion to file under seal. Mot.,

15

Dkt. No. 107. In support of the motion, Defendants submit a declaration stating that Exhibits J

16

and K to the Declaration of Brian P. Ceballo in support of Defendants’ Motion for Summary

17

Judgment (the “Ceballo MSJ Decl.”) contain Plaintiff Emil Lawrence’s (“Plaintiff”) health

18

information and that Defendants designated these Exhibits as confidential pursuant to the parties’

19

protective order. See Mot. at 3.

20

There is a “strong presumption in favor of access” by the public to judicial records and

21

documents accompanying dispositive motions. Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d

22

1172, 1178-79 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135

23

(9th Cir. 2003)). To overcome this presumption, a “party must articulate compelling reasons

24

supported by specific fact[s].” Id. at 1178 (internal quotation and citation omitted). Such showing

25

is required even where “the dispositive motion, or its attachments, were previously filed under seal

26

or protective order.” Id. at 1179.

27
28

The Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion. Compelling reasons exist to seal Exhibits J and
K, as these documents contain Plaintiff’s confidential health information. Any interest the public

1

may have in the disclosure of the records in this case is outweighed by Plaintiff’s interest in the

2

privacy of his medical records. See Van v. Language Line Servs., Inc., 2016 WL 3566980, at *2

3

(N.D. Cal. June 30, 2016) (“[C]ompelling reasons exist to protect confidential financial and

4

medical records.”); A.C. v. City of Santa Clara, 2015 WL 4076364, at *2 (N.D. Cal. July 2, 2015)

5

(compelling reasons justified sealing medical records). Defendants need not re-file the Exhibits.1

6
IT IS SO ORDERED.

7
8
9

Dated: March 3, 2017
______________________________________
MARIA-ELENA JAMES
United States Magistrate Judge

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

22
23
24
25
26
27
1

28

Defendants previously filed a Motion to remove Exhibits J and K from the docket. Dkt. No. 106.
The Court DENIES that Motion AS MOOT.
2