Ticer v. Young et al

Filing 108

ORDER by Judge Kandis A. Westmore denying 107 Motion to File Under Seal. (kawlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/28/2018)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

MARK TICER,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No. 16-cv-02198-KAW
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO FILE
UNDER SEAL

v.
GREGORY YOUNG, et al.,

Re: Dkt. No. 107

Defendants.

12
13

On August 22, 2018, Defendants filed an administrative motion to file under seal the

14

entirety of the parties' joint letter brief, which concerns the propriety of Plaintiff's redactions to his

15

mental health records. (Dkt. No. 107.) Defendants assert that sealing is appropriate because the

16

joint letter concerns Plaintiff's mental health history, and further asserts that redaction of the entire

17

joint letter -- or pages 2 through 5, which is the vast majority of the letter -- is necessary because

18

there are frequent mentions of Plaintiff's mental health history, "making it impractical to redact

19

only certain words from the text." (Id. at 2.)

20

The Court DENIES the administrative motion to file under seal. First, the request to seal

21

the vast majority of the joint letter is not proper; there are significant parts of the joint letter which

22

do not refer to Plaintiff's mental health history specifically, but instead contain general legal

23

arguments. Redaction of those parts would not be proper. Second, it is not clear what authority

24

exists to redact all mentions of Plaintiff's mental health history. It is a matter of public record that

25

Plaintiff suffers from psychiatric disabilities; indeed, that is the basis of this case, and it is not

26

clear what authority will support the redaction of Plaintiff's specific diagnoses for the duration of

27

this case. While Defendants cite to authority recognizing a privilege protecting confidential

28

communications between a psychotherapist and his/her patient, the parties do not explain whether

1

this privilege extends to diagnoses and specific events at issue in this motion.

2

The parties may again move to file the joint letter or portions thereof under seal by

3

September 11, 2018. The proposed redactions must be limited to only those parts that are

4

sealable. The parties must also submit legal authority and a declaration establishing that the

5

proposed redactions are sealable. Reference to a stipulation or protective order is not sufficient to

6

establish that a document, or portions thereof, are sealable. (See N.D. Cal. Local Rule 79-

7

5(d)(1)(A); see also Rule 79-5(e) ("Within 4 days of the filing of the Administrative Motion to

8

File Under Seal, the Designating Party must file a declaration as required by subsection 79-

9

5(d)(1)(A) establishing that all of the designated material is sealable).

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 28, 2018
__________________________________
KANDIS A. WESTMORE
United States Magistrate Judge

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2