Spreadbury v. Bitterroot Public Library et al

Filing 221

ORDER granting 218 Motion to File Under Seal Signed by Jeremiah C. Lynch on 2/9/2012. (TCL, ) Modified on 2/9/2012 to reflect copy mailed to Spreadbury this date (APP, ).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA
MISSOULA DIVISION
_____________________________________________
MICHAEL E. SPREADBURY,

CV 11-64-M-DWM-JCL

Plaintiff,
vs.
ORDER
BITTERROOT PUBLIC LIBRARY,
CITY OF HAMILTON, LEE
ENTERPRISES, INC., BOONE
KARLBERG, P.C., DR. ROBERT
BROPHY, TRISTA SMITH, NANSU
RODDY, JERRY STEELE, STEVE
SNAVELY, STEVEN BRUNER-MURPHY,
RYAN OSTER, KENNETH S. BELL,
and JENNIFER LINT,
Defendants.
_____________________________________________
Before the Court is the motion of Defendants Bitterroot Public Library, City
of Hamilton, and the individually named Defendants requesting leave to file their
reply brief and supporting exhibits relating to their pending motion in limine under
seal. The motion to seal is presented in accordance with the protective order
entered by this Court on December 13, 2011, that directed the Defendants to seek
leave of Court to file under seal any document containing personal information of
the Plaintiff Michael Spreadbury. Dkt. 189. The Defendants state that sealing is
-1-

necessary to protect confidential medical and social security records of Mr.
Spreadbury from being disclosed.
“It is well established that the fruits of pre-trial discovery are, in the absence
of a court order to the contrary, presumptively public. [Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure] 26(c) authorizes a district court to override this presumption where
‘good cause’ is shown.” Phillips v. General Motors Corporation, 307 F.3d 1206,
1210 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting San Jose Mercury News, Inc. v. United States
District Court, 187 F.3d 1096, 1103 (9th Cir.1999)). Because the Defendants’
request to seal the referenced documents is made in conjunction with the filing of
a non-dispositive motion, the “good cause” standard is applied to determine the
propriety of sealing.1
Cognizant of the fact that an individual has a constitutional right to privacy
of personal medical information records, Yin v. California, 95 F.3d 864, 870 (9th
Cir. 1996), the Court finds that the Defendants have made the requisite showing of

1

In contrast, where a party seeks to seal documents relating to a dispositive
motion, the party “must overcome a strong presumption of access [to judicial
records] by showing that ‘compelling reasons supported by specific factual
findings... outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring
disclosure.’” Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Assn., 605 F.3d 665, 679 (9th Cir. 2010)
(quoting Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178-79 (9th
Cir. 2006)).
-2-

“good cause” to file the referenced documents under seal.2
Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Defendants’ Motion for
Leave to File Reply Brief and Exhibits Under Seal is GRANTED.
DATED this 9th day of February, 2012.

/s/ Jeremiah C. Lynch
Jeremiah C. Lynch
United States Magistrate Judge

2

Mr. Spreadbury may, if he chooses to waive his privacy interests in his
medical and social security records, move to have the documents unsealed.
-3-