Doutre v. Aranas et al

Filing 30

ORDER Granting 22 Defendants' Motion to File Exhibits Under Seal. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Exhibits A, C, D, E, and F (# 24 ) will remain SEALED. Defendants must send copies of Exhibits A, C, D, E, and F (# 22 ) to the Southern Desert Co rrectional Center with instructions to maintain the records in a safe and secure place outside of Plaintiff's cell and to permit Plaintiff to review the Exhibits by appointment. Defendants must also serve Plaintiff with their 22 Motion, a copy of this order, and a letter with instructions to kite the warden's office for an appointment to view the documents. Signed by Magistrate Judge Cam Ferenbach on 06/05/2013. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - AC)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

7
8
9
10
11
12

SEAN T. DOUTRE,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
DR. ROMEO ARANAS, et al.,
)
Defendants. )
__________________________________________)

2:12-cv-00772-GMN-VCF
ORDER
(Motion to File Exhibits Under Seal #22)

Before the court is defendants Romeo Aranas, Benedicto Gutierrez, and Cheryl Dressler’s Motion

13

to File Exhibits Under Seal. (#22). No Opposition was filed.

14

Background

15

Plaintiff Sean T. Doutre, a pro se prisoner, filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis on

16

May 8, 2012. (#1). The court entered a screening order on October 30, 2012, dismissing several

17

defendants, deferring a ruling on the application to proceed in forma pauperis (#1), and staying the action

18

for the parties to engage in settlement negotiations. (#3). The complaint was filed the same day. (#4).

19

On December 6, 2013, the court entered an order scheduling an inmate early mediation conference for

20

February 8, 2013. (#8). On February 8, 2013, the court entered the minutes of proceedings from the

21

mediation conference stating that a settlement was not reached in the matter and sealing the recording of

22

the mediation. (#12).

23

On February 11, 2013, the court entered an order granting plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma

24

pauperis (#1). (#13). After being granted additional time to respond to the complaint (#19), defendants

25

filed a motion for summary judgment (#21), a motion to seal exhibits attached to the motion (#22), and

26

SEALED Exhibits to the motion (#24). Plaintiff filed two motions for temporary restraining order on May

27

20, 2013. (#26 and #27). The court issued an order on May 21, 2013, denying the first motion for

28

temporary restraining order (#26). (#28). Defendants filed an opposition to the second motion for
temporary restraining order (#27) on June 4, 2013. (#29).

1

Motion to SEAL

2

A.

3

Defendants assert in their motion to seal that pursuant to Nevada Department of Corrections

4

(hereinafter “NDOC”) Administration Regulation 639 (Medical Records), inmates are not permitted to

5

have copies of their medical records in their cells. (#22). Defendants ask this court to permit them to file

6

under SEAL Exhibits A, C, D, E, and F to the defendants’ motion for summary judgment (#21). Id.

7

Defendants assert that they will send copies of the Exhibits to the Southern Desert Correctional Center,

8

where plaintiff is currently housed, “with instructions to maintain the records in a safe and secure place

9

outside of [p]laintiff’s cell and to permit [p]laintiff to review the exhibits by appointment.” Id. Defendants

10

also assert that they will serve plaintiff with their motion (#22) as well as a letter with instructions to kite

11

the warden’s office for an appointment to view the documents. Id. Plaintiff did not file an opposition.

Arguments

12

B.

13

A party seeking to file a confidential document or utilize a confidential document at trial must

14

comply with the Ninth Circuit’s directives in Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172

15

(9th Cir. 2006):

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

Relevant Law/Discussion

Unless a particular court record is one "traditionally kept secret," a "strong
presumption inavor of access" is the starting point. ... A party seeking to seal
a judicial record then bears the burden of overcoming this strong
presumption by meeting the "compelling reasons" standard. ... that is, the
party must "articulate[ ] compelling reasons supported by specific factual
findings," that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies
favoring disclosure ....
In general, "compelling 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.
Id. at 1178-79 (citations omitted).

25

To justify the sealing of discovery materials attached to non-dispositive motions, a particularized

26

showing of good cause is required. Id. at 1180. To justify the sealing of discovery materials attached to

27

dispositive motions or used at trial, however, a higher threshold is required: a particularized showing that

28

compelling reasons support secrecy. Id. “A ‘good cause’ showing will not, without more, satisfy a
2

1

‘compelling reasons’ test.” Id. When private discovery materials are attached to a dispositive motion (or

2

response or reply) or used at trial, such materials become a part of a judicial record, and as such “are public

3

documents almost by definition, and the public is entitled to access by default.” Id.

4

As defendants ask this court for leave to file Exhibits attached to a dispositive motion (#21) under

5

seal, they must demonstrate “compelling reasons” to do so. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1180. Defendants

6

do not rely on Kamakana in their motion and do not assert that there are “compelling reasons” to support

7

their request to seal the Exhibits. (#22). The court finds, however, that the NDOC’s policy1 regarding

8

inmates having copies of their medical records and any concerns the NDOC may have with the prisoners’

9

safety or the prison staff’s ability to maintain prison order are “compelling reasons” to seal the Exhibits.

10

See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1180. The court also finds that plaintiff has an interest in his personal medical

11

records being sealed, which is indicated by the fact that plaintiff did not file an opposition to the motion

12

to seal (#22). See Local Rule 7-2(d)(“The failure of an opposing party to file points and authorities in

13

response to any motion shall constitute a consent to the granting of the motion.”).

14

Accordingly, and for good cause shown,

15

IT IS ORDERED that defendants Romeo Aranas, Benedicto Gutierrez, and Cheryl Dressler's

16

Motion to File Exhibits Under Seal (#22) is GRANTED.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Exhibits A, C, D, E, and F (#24) will remain SEALED.

17
18

...

19

...

20

...

21

...

22

...

23

...

24
25
26
27
28

1

"Federal courts lack the power to interfere with decisions made by state prison officials, absent constitutional
violations. Courts must recognize that the authority to make policy choices concerning prisons is not a proper judicial
function." Hoptowit v. Ray, 682 F.2d 1237, 1246 (9th Cir. 1982) (abrogated on other grounds by Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S.
472 (1995)), citing Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 562 (1979).

3

1

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendants must send copies of Exhibits A, C, D, E, and F (#22)

2

to the Southern Desert Correctional Center with instructions to maintain the records in a safe and secure

3

place outside of plaintiff's cell and to permit plaintiff to review the Exhibits by appointment. Defendants

4

must also serve plaintiff with their motion (#22), a copy of this order, and a letter with instructions to kite

5

the warden's office for an appointment to view the documents.

6

Dated this 5th day of June, 2013.

7
8

CAM FERENBACH
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4