Jones v. U.S. Border Patrol Agent Hernandez et al

Filing 113

ORDER Granting 105 Plaintiff's Ex Parte Application to File Document Under Seal. Signed by Judge Thomas J. Whelan on 7/23/2018. (rmc)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ALTON JONES,

Case No.: 16-CV-1986 W (WVG)
Plaintiff,

12
13

v.

14

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
EX PARTE APPLICATION TO FILE
DOCUMENT UNDER SEAL
[DOC. 105]

U.S. BORDER PATROL AGENT
HERNANDEZ, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s ex parte application to file an expert report

18

under seal. [Doc. 105.] No opposition has been filed. The Court decides the matter

19

without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1(d)(1). For the following reasons,

20

the Court GRANTS the ex parte application.

21

//

22

//

23

//

24

//

25

//

26

//

27

//

28

//
1
16-CV-1986 W (WVG)

1

I.

2

BACKGROUND
Plaintiff brought this civil rights action on August 8, 2016. (Compl. [Doc. 1].)

3

The Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”) alleges violations of state and federal law, and

4

of the U.S. Constitution pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed.

5

Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), all arising from an altercation with CBP

6

agents on August 9, 2014 at the Border Field State Park in San Diego.

7

(See TAC [Doc. 72].)

8
9

Plaintiff now applies to the Court to file an expert report under seal on the ground
that it contains sensitive medical information. (Ex Parte App. [Doc. 105].)

10
11

II.

LEGAL STANDARD

12

Federal law creates a strong presumption in favor of public access to court records.

13

But this right of access is not absolute. San Jose Mercury News, Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Court–

14

N. Dist. (San Jose), 187 F.3d 1096, 1102 (9th Cir. 1999). “Every court has supervisory

15

power over its own records and files[,]” and may provide access to court documents at its

16

discretion. See Hagestad v. Tragesser, 49 F.3d 1430, 1434 (9th Cir. 1995) (quoting

17

Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978)). District courts

18

therefore have authority to seal and unseal court records, a power that derives from their

19

inherent supervisory power. See Hagestad, 49 F.3d at 1434.

20

When a district court is asked to seal court records in a civil case, the presumption

21

in favor of access can be overcome by a showing of “sufficiently important

22

countervailing interests.” See San Jose Mercury News, 187 F.3d at 1102. The factors

23

relevant to determining whether this presumption has been overcome include the “

24

‘public interest in understanding the judicial process and whether disclosure of the

25

material could result in improper use of the material for scandalous or libelous purposes

26

or infringement upon trade secrets.’ ” Hagestad, 49 F.3d at 1434 (quoting EEOC v.

27

Erection Co., Inc., 900 F.2d 168, 170 (9th Cir. 1990). “After taking all relevant factors

28

into consideration, the district court must base its decision on a compelling reason and
2
16-CV-1986 W (WVG)

1

articulate the factual basis for its ruling, without relying on hypothesis or conjecture.” Id.

2

(citing Valley Broad. Co. v. United States Dist. Court, 798 F.2d 1289, 1295 (9th Cir.

3

1986)).
As a natural consequence of the public’s right of access to records in civil cases,

4
5

the presumption of public access cannot be overcome by a mere stipulation of the parties.

6

As Judge Posner recognized, the district judge is duty-bound to scrutinize any request to

7

seal court documents and therefore “may not rubber stamp a stipulation to seal the

8

record.” Citizens First Nat. Bank of Princeton v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 178 F.3d 943, 945

9

(7th Cir. 1999); accord City of Hartford v. Chase, 942 F.2d 130, 136 (1st Cir. 1991)

10

(“[T]he trial court—not the parties themselves—should scrutinize every such agreement

11

involving the sealing of court papers and what, if any, of them are to be sealed . . . .”).

12
13

III.

14

DISCUSSION
The need to protect medical confidentiality can serve as a compelling reason to

15

seal court documents. See, e.g., Bauman v. Harbor View Home Owners Ass’n, 16-CV-

16

2506 MMA (JMA), 2017 WL 1378215, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 11, 2017) (Anello, J.);

17

Chaker v. Adams, 10-CV-2599 GPC (BGS), 2014 WL 4063124, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Aug.

18

15, 2014) (Curiel, J.).

19

Plaintiff seeks to seal the expert report prepared by Dr. Colin Koransky, a licensed

20

clinical psychologist he has engaged in connection with this case. (Sealed Lodged

21

Proposed Documents [Doc. 106]; Koransky CV [Doc. 104-5, Exh. A].) Dr. Koransky is a

22

medical professional, and his findings and impressions pertaining to Plaintiff’s health are

23

confidential. (Sealed Lodged Proposed Documents [Doc. 106].) Redaction could not

24

mitigate the potential for disclosure.

25

The application will be granted.

26

//

27

//

28

//
3
16-CV-1986 W (WVG)

1
2

IV.

CONCLUSION & ORDER
Plaintiff’s ex parte application to file under seal is GRANTED. [Doc. 105.]

3
4
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 23, 2018

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
16-CV-1986 W (WVG)