Heldt v. The Guardian Life Insurance Company of America

Filing 64

ORDER Granting 57 Motion to File Documents Under Seal. Having reviewed Defendant's request and the documents, the Court finds that Defendant provides compelling reasons to seal portions of the declaration of Kelly Gillespie, the declaration of Kimberly Stauder, and exhibits 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15, 16, 22, and 24. The Court grants Defendant's motion to file documents under seal. Signed by Judge Cynthia Bashant on 11/13/2018. (rmc)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 JAMES HELDT, Case No. 16-cv-885-BAS-NLS 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. 13 [ECF No. 57] THE GUARDIAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, 14 15 ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL Defendant. 16 17 Presently before the Court is Defendant’s Motion to File Documents Under 18 Seal. (ECF No. 57.) Defendant seeks to file under seal portions of the declaration 19 of Kelly Gillespie, the declaration of Kimberly Stauder, and exhibits 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 20 15, 16, 22, and 24. 21 I. LEGAL STANDARD 22 “[T]he courts of this country recognize a general right to inspect and copy 23 public records and documents, including judicial records and documents.” Nixon v. 24 Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978). “Unless a particular court record 25 is one ‘traditionally kept secret,’ a ‘strong presumption in favor of access’ is the 26 starting point.” Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 27 2006) (citing Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 28 2003)). “The presumption of access is ‘based on the need for federal courts, although –1– 16cv885 1 independent—indeed, particularly because they are independent—to have a measure 2 of accountability and for the public to have confidence in the administration of 3 justice.’” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 4 2016) (quoting United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1048 (2d Cir. 1995)). 5 A party seeking to seal a judicial record bears the burden of overcoming the 6 strong presumption of access. Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1135. The showing required to 7 meet this burden depends upon whether the documents to be sealed relate to a motion 8 that is “more than tangentially related to the merits of the case.” Ctr. for Auto Safety, 9 809 F.3d at 1102. When the underlying motion is more than tangentially related to 10 the merits, the “compelling reasons” standard applies. Id. at 1096–98. When the 11 underlying motion does not surpass the tangential relevance threshold, the “good 12 cause” standard applies. Id. 13 “In general, ‘compelling reasons’ sufficient to outweigh the public’s interest 14 in disclosure and justify sealing court records exists when such ‘court files might 15 have become a vehicle for improper purposes,’ such as the use of records to gratify 16 private spite, promote public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade 17 secrets.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (quoting Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598). However, 18 “[t]he mere fact that the production of records may lead to a litigant’s embarrassment, 19 incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will not, without more, compel the 20 court to seal its records.” Id. (citing Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1136). The decision to seal 21 documents is “one best left to the sound discretion of the trial court” upon 22 consideration of “the relevant facts and circumstances of the particular case.” Nixon, 23 435 U.S. at 599. 24 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), generally, provides the “good cause” 25 standard for the purposes of sealing documents. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179. 26 The test applied is whether “‘good cause’ exists to protect th[e] information from 27 being disclosed to the public by balancing the needs for discovery against the need 28 for confidentiality.” Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. –2– 16cv885 1 2010) (quoting Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 2 1213 (9th Cir. 2002)). Under Rule 26(c), only “a particularized showing of ‘good 3 cause’ . . . is sufficient to preserve the secrecy of sealed discovery documents.” In 4 re Midland Nat. Life Ins. Co. Annuity Sales Practices Litig., 686 F.3d 1115, 1119 5 (9th Cir. 2012) (emphasis added); see also Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1180 (requiring a 6 “particularized showing” of good cause). “Broad allegations of harm, 7 unsubstantiated by specific examples or articulated reasoning, do not satisfy the Rule 8 26(c) test.” Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992). 9 II. ANALYSIS 10 The declarations and exhibits that Defendant seeks to file under seal contain 11 Plaintiff’s medical information. Documents containing specific medical information 12 may be filed under seal. See Domingo v. Brennan, 690 Fed. Appx. 928, 930 (9th Cir. 13 2017). The need to protect medical privacy qualifies as a “compelling reason” to 14 seal documents. G. v. Hawai’i, CV 08–00551 ACK–BMK, 2010 WL 2607483, at 15 *1 (D. Hawaii June 25, 2010); see also Lombardi v. TriWest Healthcare Alliance 16 Corp., CV 08–02381, 2009 WL 1212170, *1 (D. Ariz. May 4, 2009) (allowing the 17 defendant to file exhibits under seal where they contained “sensitive personal and 18 medical information”); Skinner v. Ashan, CV 04–2380, 2007 WL 708972, at *2 19 (D.N.J. Mar. 2, 2007) (observing that medical records “have long been recognized 20 as confidential in nature”). 21 Having reviewed Defendant’s request and the documents, the Court finds that 22 Defendant provides compelling reasons to seal portions of the declaration of Kelly 23 Gillespie, the declaration of Kimberly Stauder, and exhibits 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15, 16, 24 22, and 24. The Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to file documents under seal. 25 (ECF No. 57.) 26 IT IS SO ORDERED. 27 28 DATED: November 13, 2018 –3– 16cv885

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?