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)

Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?