Estate of Gerardo Cruz-Sanchez et al v. United States of America et al

Filing 134

ORDER Granting 87 Motion to File Documents Under Seal. Signed by Judge Anthony J. Battaglia on 9/17/19. (dlg)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

12

ESTATE OF GERARDO CRUZSANCHEZ, by and through his successorin-interest Paula Garcia Rivera, et al.,

13

Plaintiffs,

11

14
15
16

Case No.: 17-cv-00569-AJB-NLS
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO SEAL

v.

(Doc. No. 87)

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
et al.,
Defendants.

17
18
19

Pending before the Court is a motion to seal filed by Defendants on September 14,

20

2018. (Doc. No. 87.) Defendants’ motion requests the following documents to be filed

21

under seal:

22
23
24
25
26
27

• Attachment 2 and 3 to Beverly Soria’s Declaration (Exhibit 2 to Defendants’ Motion
for Summary Judgment)
• Attachment 2 and 3 to Dennis Morris’ Declaration (Exhibit 11 to Defendants’
Motion for Summary Judgment)
• Declaration of Owen Murray, D.O., MBA (Exhibit 6 to Defendants’ Motion for
Summary Judgment)

28
1

17-cv-00569-AJB-NLS

1
2

• Declaration of Joseph B. Marzouk, M.D. FACP (Exhibit 12 to Defendants’ Motion
for Summary Judgment)

3

• ICE Medical Records (Exhibit 3 to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment)

4

• Report of Todd Wilcox (Exhibit 1 to Defendants’ Motion to Exclude Expert

5

Opinions of Dr. Todd Wilcox)

6

Defendants contend the documents contain private information regarding Plaintiff’s

7

medical records and proprietary and security sensitive documents that memorialize

8

CoreCivic security operations and procedures. (Doc. No. 87 at 2.)

9

Courts have historically recognized a “general right to inspect and copy public

10

records and documents, including judicial records and documents.” Nixon v. Warner

11

Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978). “Unless a particular court record is one

12

‘traditionally kept secret,’ a ‘strong presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.”

13

Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Foltz

14

v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). In order to

15

overcome this strong presumption, a party seeking to seal a judicial record must articulate

16

compelling justifications for sealing that outweigh the public policies favoring disclosure.

17

See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178–79. “In turn, the court must ‘conscientiously balance[]

18

the competing interests’ of the public and the party who seeks to keep certain judicial

19

records secret.” Id. at 1179 (citation omitted).

20

After a careful examination of the documents, the Court agrees with Defendants and

21

finds that despite the generally recognized right to inspect records and documents in this

22

country, Defendants have overcome this strong presumption of access by providing

23

compelling reasons to seal. See Nixon, 435 U.S. at 597 & n.7; see also Pintos v. Pac.

24

Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 677–78 (9th Cir. 2010) (holding that a “compelling reasons

25

standard applies to most [motions to seal] judicial records.”) (internal quotation marks

26

omitted).

27

Here, the documents Defendants wish to seal include personal and sensitive

28

information regarding Plaintiff, including incidents that occurred when he was in federal
2

17-cv-00569-AJB-NLS

1

custody and his medical conditions. (Doc. No. 87.) The documents also include

2

information regarding CoreCivic’s security operations and procedures that if released

3

publicly present safety and security concerns. (Id.) Accordingly, balancing the need for the

4

public’s access to information and Defendants’ interest in keeping this material private

5

weighs strongly in favor of sealing. Thus, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to seal.

6

(Doc. No. 87); see Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1137 (acknowledging privacy interests implicated by

7

sensitive, personal, identifying information); see also Fosselman v. Evans, No. C 07-2606

8

PJH (PR), 2011 WL 939616, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 15, 2011) (granting a motion to seal

9

based on the finding that the documents would threaten the safety and security of the

10

institution).

11
12

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13

Dated: September 17, 2019

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3

17-cv-00569-AJB-NLS