Doe et al v. Clark County School District et al

Filing 111

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 109 Motion to Seal. Defendants shall redact personal information from Exhibit 1 and file it unsealed. Exhibits 2, 3, 4, and 5 may be filed under seal. Signed by Magistrate Judge George Foley, Jr on 6/13/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JM)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6
7
8
9
10
11
12

JOHN DOE et al.,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
CLARK COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT,
)
et al.,
)
)
)
Defendants.
)
__________________________________________)

Case No. 2:15-cv-00793-RFB-GWF
ORDER

13
14

This matter is before the Court on Defendants Clark County School District, Jeanne

15

Donadio, and Erin Wing’s Motion to Seal Certain Exhibits to Defendants’ Motion for Summary

16

Judgment (ECF No. 109), filed on June 7, 2017.

17

Defendants request leave to file exhibits 1-5 to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment

18

(ECF No. 107) under seal pursuant to the parties stipulated protective order. The Ninth Circuit

19

comprehensively examined the presumption of public access to judicial files and records in

20

Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2006). There, the court

21

recognized that different interests are at stake in preserving the secrecy of materials produced during

22

discovery and materials attached to dispositive motions. The Kamakana court held that a “good

23

cause” showing is sufficient to seal documents produced during discovery. Id. at 1180. However,

24

the Kamakana decision also held that a showing of “compelling reasons” is needed to support the

25

secrecy of documents attached to dispositive motions. A showing of “good cause” does not,

26

without more, satisfy the “compelling reasons” test required to maintain the secrecy of documents

27

attached to dispositive motions. Id. The court found that:

28

...

1

5

Different interests are at stake with the right of access than with Rule 26(c); with the
former, the private interests of the litigants are not the only weights on the scale.
Unlike private materials unearthed during discovery, judicial records are public
documents almost by definition, and the public is entitled to access by default.
(Citation omitted). This fact sharply tips the balance in favor of production when a
document formally sealed for good cause under Rule 26(c) becomes part of the
judicial record. Thus, a “good cause” showing alone will not suffice to fulfill the
“compelling reasons” standard that a party must meet to rebut the presumption of
access to dispositive pleadings and attachments.

6

Id.

7

Kamakana recognized that “compelling reasons” sufficient to outweigh the public’s interests

2
3
4

8

in disclosure and justify sealing records exist when court records may be used to gratify private

9

spite, permit public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets. Id. at 1179

10

(internal quotations omitted). However, “[t]he mere fact that the production of records may lead to

11

a litigant’s embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will not, without more,

12

compel the court to seal its records.” Id., citing, Foltz v. State Farm Mutual Auto Insurance

13

Company, 331 F.3d 1122, 1136 (9th Cir. 1995). To justify sealing documents attached to

14

dispositive motions, a party is required to present articulable facts identifying the interests favoring

15

continuing secrecy and show that these specific interests overcome the presumption of public access

16

by outweighing the public’s interests in understanding the judicial process. Id. at 1181 (internal

17

citations and quotations omitted).

18

Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s transcript should be filed under seal out of an abundance of

19

caution to prevent identification of the Doe party. Defendants further argue that medical records

20

should be sealed pursuant to Carmichael v. Aranas, 2017 WL 955183, at *2 (D. Nev. Mar. 10,

21

2017). The Carmichael Court found that “a person’s medical records contain sensitive and private

22

information about their health,” and “the [party]’s interest in keeping his sensitive health

23

information confidential outweighs the public’s need for direct access to the medical records.” Id.

24

On balance, here, the interest in keeping Plaintiff’s medical records that contain sensitive and

25

private information confidential outweighs the need for the public’s access to information. The

26

Court, therefore, grants Defendants’ request to seal Exhibits 2-5. Defendants, however, have not

27

provided sufficient compelling reasons why their Exhibit 1, Plaintiff’s high school transcript, should

28

be filed under seal. Defendants shall redact personal information from Exhibit 1 and file it
2

1
2

unsealed. Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants Clark County School District, Jeanne

3

Donadio, and Erin Wing’s Motion to Seal Certain Exhibits to Defendants’ Motion for Summary

4

Judgment (ECF No. 109) is granted, in part, and denied, in part, as follows:

5

1.

Defendants shall redact personal information from Exhibit 1 and file it unsealed.

6

2.

Exhibits 2, 3, 4, and 5 may be filed under seal.

7

DATED this 13th day of June, 2017.

8
9
10

______________________________________
GEORGE FOLEY, JR.
United States Magistrate Judge

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3