Brothers v. Neven et al

Filing 89

ORDER. IT IS ORDERED that 78 Defendants motion to seal is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the hearing on this motion set for 5/6/2021 is VACATED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Brenda Weksler on 4/27/2021. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JQC)

1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6

***

7
8

Terrance D. Brothers,
Plaintiff,

9
10
11

Case No. 2:17-cv-00641-JCM-BNW
ORDER

v.
Dwight Neven, et al.,
Defendants.

12
13
14

Defendants Dwight Neven and Romeo Aranas move to file Exhibit A to their motion for

15

summary judgment under seal. ECF No. 78. The sealed exhibit is filed at ECF No. 79. Plaintiff

16

has not opposed this request, and Defendants meet the compelling reason standard for sealing

17

Exhibit A. Accordingly, this Court grants Defendants’ motion.

18

Analysis

19

Generally, the public has a right to inspect and copy judicial records. Kamakana v. City &

20

Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). Such records are presumptively publicly

21

accessible. Id. Consequently, a party seeking to seal a judicial record bears the burden of

22

overcoming this strong presumption. Id. In the case of dispositive motions, the party seeking to

23

seal the record must articulate compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that

24

outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure, such as the

25

public interest in understanding the judicial process. Id. at 1178-79 (alteration and internal

26

quotation marks and citations omitted). The Ninth Circuit has further held that the full

27

presumption of public access applies to technically non-dispositive motions and attached

28

1

documents as well if the motion is “more than tangentially related to the merits of the case.” Ctr.

2

for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1101 (9th Cir. 2016).

3

A compelling reason may exist to seal a judicial record when such court files might

4

become a vehicle for improper purposes, such as the use of records to gratify private spite,

5

promote public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets. Kamakana, 447

6

F.3d at 1179 (quotation omitted). However, avoiding a litigant’s embarrassment, incrimination,

7

or exposure to further litigation will not, without more, compel the court to seal its records. Id.

8

Defendants seek to seal Exhibit A to their motion for summary judgment, as it contains

9

portions of Plaintiff’s medical records, including diagnoses, treatment plans, and other

10

communications about Plaintiff’s medical condition. Given this is an exhibit to a dispositive

11

motion, Defendants must show compelling reasons to overcome the presumption that this filing

12

should be publicly accessible.

13

The Court notes that medical records are deemed confidential under the Health Insurance

14

Portability and Accountability Act of 1996. See Webb v. Smart Document Solutions, LLC, 499

15

F.3d 1078, 1082 (9th Cir. 2007). Thus, this Court finds that medical privacy is a “compelling

16

reason,” for sealing records. See also San Ramon Regional Med. Ctr., Inc. v. Principal Life Ins.

17

Co., 2011 WL89931, at *n. 1 (N.D.Cal. Jan. 10, 2011).

18
19
20
21

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants’ motion to seal (ECF No. 78) is
GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the hearing on this motion set for May 6, 2021 is
VACATED.

22
23

DATED: April 27, 2021

24
25

BRENDA WEKSLER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

26
27
28
Page 2 of 2