Collins v. Nationwide Agribusiness Insurance Company et al
Filing
46
ORDER denying 38 Motion to File Documents Under Seal; denying 28 Motion to File Documents Under Seal. Instead, the redacted versions of Exhibits B, I, K, and P are appropriately filed. Any party may move to file unredacted versions at any time. Signed by Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel on 11/16/20. (dlg)
Case 3:19-cv-01392-GPC-MSB Document 46 Filed 11/16/20 PageID.1100 Page 1 of 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
JOHN GARY COLLINS,
Case No.: 19-cv-1392-GPC-MSB
Plaintiff,
12
13
v.
14
ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO
FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL
NATIONWIDE AGRIBUSINESS
INSURANCE COMPANY; and DOES 1
THROUGH 10,
15
16
[ECF Nos. 28, 38]
Defendants.
17
18
Before this Court is Defendant Nationwide Agribusiness Insurance Company’s two
19
motions to file under seal certain documents in support of its motion for summary
20
judgment. ECF Nos. 28, 38. The Court DENIES both motions.
21
Courts apply a “strong presumption in favor of access” to documents filed in
22
litigation. Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1137 (9th Cir. 2003).
23
To overcome that presumption, the movant must provide “compelling reasons supported
24
by specific factual findings . . . that outweigh the general history of access and the public
25
policies favoring disclosure, such as the ‘public interest in understanding the judicial
26
27
28
1
19-cv-1392-GPC-MSB
Case 3:19-cv-01392-GPC-MSB Document 46 Filed 11/16/20 PageID.1101 Page 2 of 2
1
process.’” Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178–79 (9th Cir.
2
2006) (citations omitted).
3
Typically, medical privacy qualifies as a “compelling reason” to seal records. See,
4
e.g., Salgado v. Iqvia, Inc., No. 18-CV-2785-BAS-WVG, 2020 WL 1322949, at *2 (S.D.
5
Cal. Mar. 20, 2020). However, Plaintiff, by putting the medical history “at issue,” has
6
waived the confidentiality of these records. See Warner v. Velardi, No. 16-CV-1924-
7
BEN (DHB), 2017 WL 3387723, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 7, 2017).
8
9
Specifically, the July 2018 Medical Review and the October 2018 Peer Review
Report—which correspond to Defendant’s Exhibits C and E—have already been
10
produced by Plaintiff. See Pl.’s Evid. Exs. 16, 23, ECF No. 37-4. The Court cannot seal
11
what has already been made public. See, e.g., In re Google Inc. Gmail Litig., No. 13-
12
MD-02430-LHK, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 136420, at *31 to *34 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 6, 2014)
13
(citing In re Elec. Arts, Inc., 298 F. App’x 568, 570 (9th Cir. 2008)); TriQuint
14
Semiconductor, Inc. v. Avago Techs. Ltd., No. CV-09-1531-PHX-JAT, 2012 WL
15
1432519, at *7 (D. Ariz. Apr. 25, 2012).
16
Accordingly, the Court DENIES Defendant’s motions to file under seal. Instead,
17
the redacted versions of Exhibits B, I, K, and P are appropriately filed. Any party may
18
move to file unredacted versions at any time.
19
IT IS SO ORDERED.
20
21
Dated: November 16, 2020
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
19-cv-1392-GPC-MSB
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?