Burghardt v. Franz, et al

Filing 27

ORDER GRANTING 25 PLAINTIFF'S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 1/5/2018. (blflc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/5/2018)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3

SAN JOSE DIVISION

4
5

DARRYL BURGHARDT,

Case No. 17-cv-00339-BLF

Plaintiff,

6
7

v.

8

J. FRANZ, et al.,

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF
DARRYL BURGHARDT’S MOTION TO
SEAL

Defendants.

9
10

Before the Court is Plaintiff Darryl Burghardt’s (“Burghardt”) administrative motion to file

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

under seal portions of Burghardt’s Brief Supporting Appointment of Counsel or Guardian Under

13

Rule 17(c) and Exhibit B to the Declaration of Elizabeth K. Boggs in Support of Brief Supporting

14

Appointment. See ECF 25. The time has passed for Defendants to oppose the motion to seal and

15

they have not filed an opposition. For the reasons stated below, the motion to seal is GRANTED.

16
17

I.

LEGAL STANDARD
There is a “strong presumption in favor of access” to judicial records. Kamakana v. City &

18

Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto.

19

Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). A party seeking to seal judicial records bears the

20

burden of overcoming this presumption by articulating “compelling reasons supported by specific

21

factual findings that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring

22

disclosure.” Id. at 1178-79. Compelling reasons for sealing court files generally exist when such

23

“‘court files might have become a vehicle for improper purposes,’ such as the use of records to

24

gratify private spite, promote public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade

25

secrets.” Id. (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978)). However,

26

“[t]he mere fact that the production of records may lead to a litigant’s embarrassment,

27

incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will not, without more, compel the court to seal its

28

records.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179. Ultimately, “[w]hat constitutes a ‘compelling reason’ is

1

‘best left to the sound discretion of the trial court.’” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrslyer Grp., LLC,

2

809 F.3d 1092, 1097 (9th Cir. 2016).
“Despite this strong preference for public access, [the Ninth Circuit has] carved out an

3
4

exception,” id. at 1097, for judicial records attached to motions that are “tangentially related to the

5

merits of a case,” id. at 1101. Parties moving to seal such records need only make a

6

“particularized showing” under the “good cause” standard of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

7

26(c). Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1180 (quoting Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1138).
In this District, parties seeking to seal judicial records must furthermore follow Civil Local

8
9

Rule 79-5, which requires, inter alia, that a sealing request be “narrowly tailored to seek sealing
only of sealable material.” Civil L.R. 79-5(b) (emphasis added). Where the submitting party

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

seeks to file under seal a document designated confidential by another party, the burden of

12

articulating compelling reasons for sealing is placed on the designating party. Id. 79-5(e).
II.

13

DISCUSSION
The Court has reviewed Burghardt’s sealing motion and the declaration of Elizabeth K.

14
15

Boggs in support thereof. According to the declaration, portions of the brief supporting

16

appointment of counsel or guardian under Rule 17(c) should be sealed because they contain

17

Burghardt’s confidential medical and psychiatric records. See Boggs Decl. iso Motion to Seal ¶ 6,

18

ECF 25-1. The highlighted portions of the brief that Burghardt requests to seal largely consist of

19

references and quotations taken from his medical records that are submitted as Exhibit B to the

20

declaration of Elizabeth K. Boggs in support of brief supporting appointment. See ECF 25-4

21

(“Brief Supporting Appointment”), ECF 25-6 (“Exhibit B”). Therefore, Burghardt also requests to

22

seal Exhibit B in its entirety because the excerpts of Burghardt’s medical records contain private

23

and sensitive medical and psychiatric information regarding Burghardt’s health.1
The Court finds that the “good cause” standard applies to Burghardt’s sealing motion, as

24
25

the motion to appoint counsel or guardian under Rule 17(c) is non-dispositive and only

26
1

27
28

Counsel for Burghardt explains that she made a request for Burghardt’s medical and psychiatric
records to the California State Prison – Sacramento and received a voluminous box of paper
records, of which she submits only certain relevant excerpts in Exhibit B. See Boggs Decl. iso
Brief Supporting Appointment of Counsel or Guardian under Rule 17(c), ECF 26-1, ¶¶ 3-5.
2

1

“tangentially related to the merits of [the] case.” Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1101. Parties

2

moving to seal such records need only make a “particularized showing” under the “good cause”

3

standard of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1180 (quoting Foltz,

4

331 F.3d at 1138). Burghardt has made such a showing of good cause, as the excerpts from the

5

Brief Supporting Appointment and Exhibit B contain Burghardt’s confidential personal

6

information, they are appropriately sealable.
In fact, Burghardt’s motion likely satisfies the more stringent “compelling reasons”

7

standard to seal as well. See, e.g., Hunt v. Cont’l Cas. Co., No. 13-CV-05966-HSG, 2015 WL

9

5355398, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 14, 2015) (granting motion to seal deposition testimony of

10

psychotherapist as well as handwritten notes and bills from psychotherapy sessions under

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

8

compelling reasons standard due to the plaintiff’s “interest in preserving the privacy of her

12

sensitive mental health records.”) (citing San Ramon Reg’l Med. Ctr., Inc. v. Principal Life Ins.

13

Co., No. 10–cv–02258–SBA, 2011 WL 89931, at *1 n.1 (N.D.Cal. Jan. 10, 2011)). Because the

14

redacted excerpts from Burghardt’s Brief Supporting Appointment and Exhibit B contain

15

references to Burghardt’s sensitive medical and psychiatric history, the Court finds that both good

16

cause and compelling reasons exist to keep them under seal.
Moreover, Burghardt’s request is narrowly tailored to sealable material—Burghardt’s

17
18

medical and psychiatric information—and does not extend to the legal arguments or other non-

19

sealable information in Burghardt’s brief. Civil L.R. 79-5(b).

20
21

III.

ORDER
For the foregoing reasons, the sealing motion at ECF 25 is GRANTED and the excerpts of

22

Burghardt’s Motion to Appoint Counsel or Guardian Under Rule 17(c), and Exhibit B to the

23

Boggs Declaration in support thereof, may be filed under seal. See ECF 26, 26-3.

24
25
26
27

Dated: January 5, 2018
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge

28
3