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