Magdziak v. Berryhill

Filing 36

ORDER denying 35 Motion to Seal. Signed by Judge John A. Houston on 11/12/2021. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(jpp)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

DARYL M. MAGDZIAK,

Case No.: 3:17-cv-01367-JAH-RNB
Plaintiff,

10
11

v.

12

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
SEAL (ECF No. 35)

NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting
Commissioner of Social Security,

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

Defendant.
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Daryl M. Magdziak’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion to
Seal. (ECF No. 35, “Mot.”). Therein, Plaintiff requests this Court issue an order sealing
“sensitive information . . . [that] inva[des his] privacy” from this matter, although Plaintiff
does not identify what information he considers to be sensitive.
In the United States, “courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy
public records and documents, including judicial records and documents.’ ” Kamakana v.
City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner
Commc'ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 & n. 7 (1978)). To overcome the strong presumption
in favor of public access to court records, a party seeking to maintain a judicial record
under seal has the burden to show “compelling reasons supported by specific factual
findings” that justify sealing the records. Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass'n, 605 F.3d 665, 678
(9th Cir. 2009); Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178. Additionally, the party must show that

28
1
3:17-cv-01367-JAH-RNB

1

compelling reasons “outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring

2

disclosure.” Pintos, 605 F.3d at 678. The Ninth Circuit notes:

3
4
5
6
7

“[C]ompelling reasons” sufficient to outweigh the public's interest in
disclosure and justify sealing court records exist when such court files might
have become a vehicle for improper purposes, such as the use of records to
gratify private spite, promote public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or
release trade secrets. The mere fact that the production of records may lead to
a litigant's embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will
not, without more, compel the court to seal its records.

8
9

Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (internal quotations and citations omitted).

10

Here, Plaintiff has not met his burden to show compelling reasons that outweigh the

11

public policy favoring disclosure of court records for an order to seal the record in this

12

matter. Plaintiff’s assertion that the published information reveals sensitive information

13

constituting an invasion of his privacy, alone, is an insufficient basis to grant his request.

14

Accordingly, the motion to seal is DENIED.

15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16

DATED: November 12, 2021

17
18
19
20

_________________________________
JOHN A. HOUSTON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
3:17-cv-01367-JAH-RNB