Green v. Bannister et al

Filing 71

MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS of the Honorable Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb, on 2/6/2014, granting 52 Motion to Seal. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA

MATTHEW GREEN,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
ROBERT BANNISTER, et. al.
)
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________)
PRESENT:

3:12-cv-00004-LRH-WGC
MINUTES OF THE COURT
February 6, 2014

THE HONORABLE WILLIAM G. COBB, U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

DEPUTY CLERK:

KATIE OGDEN

REPORTER: NONE APPEARING

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF(S): NONE APPEARING
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT(S): NONE APPEARING
MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS:
Before the court is Defendants’ Motion for Leave to File Medical Records Under Seal In
Support of Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. (Doc. # 52.) Specifically, Defendants
seek leave to file under seal Exhibit C, Plaintiff’s medical records, in support of their motion.
“Historically, courts have recognized a general right to inspect and copy public records
and documents, including judicial records and documents.” See Kamakana v. City and County of
Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
Documents that have been traditionally kept secret, including grand jury transcripts and warrant
materials in a pre-indictment investigation, come within an exception to the general right of
public access. See id. Otherwise, “a strong presumption in favor of access is the starting point.”
Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
A motion to seal documents that are part of the judicial record, or filed in connection with
a dispositive motion must meet the “compelling reasons” standard outlined in Kamakana. Thus,
a party seeking to seal judicial records must show that “compelling reasons supported by specific
factual findings...outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring
disclosure.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178-79. The trial court must weigh relevant factors
including “the public interest in understanding the judicial process and whether disclosure of the
///

MINUTES CONT’D
3:12-cv-00004-LRH-WGC
PAGE 2
________________________________________________________________________
material could result in improper use of the material for scandalous or libelous purposes or
infringement upon trade secrets.” Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 679 n. 6 (9th
Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). While the decision to grant or deny a
motion to seal is within the trial court’s discretion, the trial court must articulate its reasoning in
deciding a motion to seal. Pintos, 605 F.3d at 679.
The court recognizes that the need to protect medical privacy has qualified as a
“compelling reason,” for sealing records in connection with a dispositive motion. See, e.g., San
Ramon Regional Med. Ctr., Inc. v. Principal Life Ins. Co., 2011 WL89931, at *n.1 (N.D. Cal.
Jan. 10, 2011); Abbey v. Hawaii Employers Mut. Ins. Co., 2010 WL4715793, at * 1-2 (D. HI.
Nov. 15, 2010); G. v. Hawaii, 2010 WL 267483, at *1-2 (D.HI. June 25, 2010); Wilkins v.
Ahern, 2010 WL3755654 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 24, 2010); Lombardi v. TriWest Healthcare Alliance
Corp., 2009 WL 1212170, at * 1 (D.Ariz. May 4, 2009).
The court finds that balancing the need for the public’s access to information regarding
Plaintiff’s medical history, treatment, and condition against the need to maintain the
confidentiality of Plaintiff’s medical records weighs in favor of sealing these records. Therefore,
Defendants’ motion (Doc. # 52) is GRANTED and Exhibit C, filed in support of Defendants’
motion shall be filed under SEAL.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
LANCE S. WILSON, CLERK
By: /s/
Deputy Clerk