Hiramanek et al v. Clark et al

Filing 655

Order by Hon. Ronald M. Whyte Regarding 577 Motion to Seal. (rmwlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/5/2016)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SAN JOSE DIVISION

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

ADIL HIRAMANEK, et al.,

Case No. 5:13-cv-00228-RMW

Plaintiffs,
13
v.

ORDER REGARDING MOTION TO
SEAL

14
15

L. MICHAEL CLARK, et al.,

Re: Dkt. No. 577

Defendants.
16
17

Before the court is an administrative motion to file under seal certain documents submitted

18

in relation to an Americans With Disabilities Act request allegedly prepared by Roda Hiramanek

19

on or about June 4, 2013. Dkt No. 577. Because the court’s Electronic Case Filing system does not

20

allow pro se litigants to file documents electronically under seal, plaintiffs emailed the documents

21

that plaintiffs seek to file under seal to the undersigned judge’s courtroom deputy. (See table

22

below).

23

“Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records

24

and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City & County of

25

Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435

26

U.S. 589, 597 & n. 7 (1978)). Accordingly, when considering a sealing request, “a ‘strong

27

presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.” Id. (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto.

28
1
5:13-cv-00228-RMW
ORDER REGARDING MOTION TO SEAL

1

Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). Parties seeking to seal judicial records relating to

2

dispositive motions bear the burden of overcoming the presumption with “compelling reasons”

3

that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure. Id. at 1178-

4

79.
A protective order sealing the documents during discovery may reflect the court’s previous

5

determination that good cause exists to keep the documents sealed, see Kamakana, 447 F.3d at

7

1179-80, but a blanket protective order that allows the parties to designate confidential documents

8

does not provide sufficient judicial scrutiny to determine whether each particular document should

9

remain sealed. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(A) (“Reference to a stipulation or protective order that

10

allows a party to designate certain documents as confidential is not sufficient to establish that a

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

6

document, or portions thereof, are sealable.”).

12

In addition to making particularized showings of good cause, parties moving to seal

13

documents must comply with the procedures established by Civ. L.R. 79-5. Pursuant to Civ. L.R.

14

79-5(b), a sealing order is appropriate only upon a request that establishes the document is

15

“sealable,” or “privileged or protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under

16

the law.” “The request must be narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material, and

17

must conform with Civil L.R. 79-5(d).” Civ. L.R. 79-5(b). “Within 4 days of the filing of the

18

Administrative Motion to File Under Seal, the Designating Party must file a declaration as

19

required by subsection 79-5(d)(1)(A) establishing that all of the designated material is sealable.”

20

Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).
Plaintiffs’ primary concern over the documents in question seems to be that they may

21
22

reveal Ms. Hiramanek’s medical conditions. Courts have recognized confidentiality in patients’

23

medical files. See, e.g., Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1186. On the other hand, a party’s voluntary

24

disclosure of otherwise confidential information can constitute grounds for denying a motion to

25

seal. With these standards in mind, the courts rules on the instant motion as follows.

26

//

27

//

28
2
5:13-cv-00228-RMW
ORDER REGARDING MOTION TO SEAL

1
2
3

Motion
to Seal
577

4
5
6
7
8

Document to be Sealed
Plaintiff Roda
Hiramanek’s June 4,
2013 “Request For
Accommodations By
Persons With
Disabilities and
Response” with
attachment Exhibit A
(Emailed to courtroom
deputy)

Ruling

Reason/Explanation

GRANTED References medical conditions. The court is
not convinced at this time that the public’s
right of access to the underlying documents
outweighs plaintiff’s interest in maintaining
her privacy.

For any documents listed above for which a motion to seal has been granted, the court will

10

accept the documents as filed and instruct the clerk to place these documents on the court’s docket

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

9

(if they do not already have a docket number) and restrict electronic access only to participants in

12

this case.

13

The court notes that the U.S. District Court is a public forum, and, to the extent that this

14

order allows documents to be filed under seal, this order does not decide whether the documents

15

that are the subject of the instant motion can be used in open court in any future proceedings.

16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 5, 2016
______________________________________
Ronald M. Whyte
United States District Judge

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3
5:13-cv-00228-RMW
ORDER REGARDING MOTION TO SEAL