Ticer v. Young et al

Filing 115

ORDER by Judge 10/5/2018 granting 110 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal. (kawlc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/5/2018)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

MARK TICER,
Plaintiff,

8

GREGORY YOUNG, et al.,

Re: Dkt. No. 110

Defendants.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO FILE
UNDER SEAL

v.

9
10

Case No. 16-cv-02198-KAW

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.) On August 28, 2018, the Court denied the motion to file

16

under seal, finding that the request was overbroad and that it was not clear what authority existed

17

to redact all mentions of Plaintiff's mental health history, particularly when Plaintiff's psychiatric

18

disabilities "is the basis of this case." (Dkt. No. 108 at 1.) The Court also noted that it was "not

19

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

20

this case." (Id.) The Court permitted the parties to file a renewed motion to file under seal that

21

was more narrowly tailored.

22

On September 11, 2018, the parties filed a joint renewed administrative motion to file

23

under seal. (Dkt. No. 110.) The renewed motion sought to redact portions of the joint letter that

24

concerned the diagnoses that Plaintiff asserts are not at issue in this suit, as well as some family

25

history.

26

The Court GRANTS the motion to file under seal. In general, "courts have recognized a

27

'general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and

28

documents.'" Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting

1

Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 n.7 (1978)). Thus, "[u]nless a particular court

2

record is one traditionally kept secret, a strong presumption in favor of access is the starting

3

point." Id. (internal quotation omitted). This public policy, however, does "not apply with equal

4

force to non-dispositive materials." Id. at 1179. For non-dispositive motions, the parties need

5

only show that "'good cause' exists to protect this information from being disclosed to the public

6

by balancing the needs for discovery against the need for confidentiality." Id. at 1180 (internal

7

quotation omitted). "For good cause to exist, the party seeking protection bears the burden of

8

showing specific prejudice or harm will result if no protective order is granted." Phillips ex rel.

9

Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002).
Here, the joint letter refers to Plaintiff's private medical information. The redactions are

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

limited to conditions that Plaintiff asserts are not at issue in this case, and may never be at issue.

12

Thus, the Court finds there is good cause to allow for sealing.

13

While the Court finds there is good cause to redact particular psychiatric conditions in the

14

joint letter, the Court notes that on the merits, Defendants would appear to have a right to

15

discovery on those conditions, subject to the protective order. The diagnoses at issue are highly

16

relevant to the case because Plaintiff's psychiatric disabilities are the basis of this lawsuit. While

17

Plaintiff may disagree which specific diagnoses have led to his harm, given the nature of this case,

18

Defendants have the right to discovery to determine how his other mental conditions may have

19

affected his disability or emotional distress claims.

20

Accordingly, the renewed motion to file under seal is GRANTED. If the parties still

21

require a ruling on the joint letter, a redacted joint letter may be filed redacting the portions

22

concerning diagnoses that Plaintiff asserts are not at issue.

23
24

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 5, 2018
__________________________________
KANDIS A. WESTMORE
United States Magistrate Judge

25
26
27
28
2