Kanellakopoulos v. Unimerica Life Insurance Company

Filing 143

ORDER GRANTING 140 PLAINTIFF'S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL IN PART THE COURT'S SUMMARY JUDGMENT ORDER ISSUED JANUARY 3, 2018. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 1/18/2018. (blflc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/18/2018)

1
2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

4

SAN JOSE DIVISION

5
6

IOANNIS KANELLAKOPOULOS,
Plaintiff,

7
8
9
10

v.
UNIMERICA LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY,
Defendant.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No. 15-cv-04674-BLF
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL
IN PART THE COURT’S SUMMARY
JUDGMENT ORDER ISSUED
JANUARY 3, 2018
[Re: ECF 140]

12
13
14

On January 3, 2018, the Court issued an Order Denying Defendant Unimerica’s Motion for

15

Summary Judgment or, in the Alternative, for Partial Summary Judgment (“Summary Judgment

16

Order”). Summary Judgment Order, ECF 137. The Court conditionally sealed the Summary

17

Judgment Order and directed the parties to meet and confer to discuss whether the Summary

18

Judgment Order may be filed publicly or whether the parties wish to request that portions of the

19

Summary Judgment Order be sealed. Order Directing Parties to Meet and Confer, ECF 138.

20

Plaintiff has submitted an administrative motion requesting that portions of the Summary

21

Judgment Order be filed under seal, and he has submitted a proposed redacted order. Pl’s

22

Administrative Motion, ECF 140. Plaintiff represents that Defendant does not oppose the

23

proposed redactions. Serebin Decl. ¶ 3, ECF 140-1.

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). Consequently, filings that are “more than tangentially related to the

28

merits of a case” may be sealed only upon a showing of “compelling reasons” for sealing. Ctr. for

1

Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1101-02 (9th Cir. 2016). Sealing motions filed

2

in this district also must be “narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material.” Civil

3

L.R. 79-5(b).
Plaintiff requests sealing of those portions of the Summary Judgment Order which disclose

4

his personal medical information. Because the Summary Judgment Order addresses a dispositive

6

motion, it is more than tangentially related to the merits of the case. Plaintiff therefore must

7

establish compelling reasons for sealing. District courts within the Ninth Circuit generally have

8

found that an individual’s desire to protect personal medical information is sufficient to meet the

9

compelling reasons test. See, e.g., Krysten C. v. Blue Shield of California, No. 15-CV-02421-RS,

10

2016 WL 5934709, at *3 n.3 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 11, 2016) (sealing documents based on the plaintiff’s

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

5

“privacy interests in her medical records”); San Ramon Reg’l Med. Ctr., Inc. v. Principal Life Ins.

12

Co., No. 10-cv-02258-SBA, 2011 WL 89931, at *1 n.1 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 10, 2011) (sua sponte

13

sealing documents based on finding “that the need to protect the Patient’s confidential medical

14

information outweighs any necessity for disclosure”); Lombardi v. TriWest Healthcare Alliance

15

Corp., CV 08-02381, 2009 WL 1212170, at *1 (D. Ariz. May 4, 2009) (sealing exhibits

16

containing “sensitive personal and medical information”). Plaintiff’s administrative motion is

17

narrowly tailored to seek redaction of personal medical information. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s

18

administrative sealing motion is GRANTED.1 The Clerk shall file publicly the redacted version of

19

the Summary Judgment Order, attached as Exhibit A to the Serebin Declaration filed in support of

20

Plaintiff’s administrative motion, located on the docket at ECF 140-3.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

21
22

Dated: January 18, 2018
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge

23
24
25
1

26
27
28

This ruling does not authorize Plaintiff to seal or redact evidence presented at trial. “The parties
should remember that trials are conducted as public proceedings.” GoDaddy.com LLC v. RPost
Commc’ns Ltd., No. CV-14-00126-PHX-JAT, 2016 WL 1274120, at *2 n.2 (D. Ariz. Mar. 31,
2016); see also Kasbarian v. Equinox Holdings, Inc., No. 2:16-CV-01795 MWF (JCX), 2016 WL
4974945, at *6 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 16, 2016) (“trials are presumptively public proceedings”).
2