Johnson v. Nguyen et al

Filing 137

ORDER granting ECF# 57 Motion for Leave to File Medical Records Under Seal filed in Case 3:14-cv-00213. Signed by Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb on 1/20/2016. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KR)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6

LAUSTEVEION JOHNSON,

7
8
9

Plaintiff,

12
13

Re: ECF No. 57 filed in
Case No. 3:14-cv-00213-MMD-WGC

v.
ORDER
A. NGUYEN, et. al.,

10
11

Case No. 3:12-cv-00538-MMD-WGC

Defendants.
Before the court is Defendants’ Motion for Leave to File Medical Records Under Seal.
(ECF No. 57.)1
In this motion, Defendants seek to have Plaintiff’s medical records filed under seal. The

14

records were included as exhibits in support of Defendants’ opposition to Plaintiff’s motion for

15

summary judgment and Defendants’ cross- motion for summary judgment.

16

Historically, courts have recognized a general right to inspect and copy public records

17

and documents, including judicial records and documents.” See Kamakana v. City and County of

18

Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

19

“‘Throughout our history, the open courtroom has been a fundamental feature of the American

20

judicial system. Basic principles have emerged to guide judicial discretion respecting public

21

access to judicial proceedings. These principles apply as well to the determination of whether to

22

permit access to information contained in court documents because court records often provide

23

important, sometimes the only, bases or explanations for a court’s decision.’” Oliner v.

24

Kontrabecki, 745 F.3d 1024, 1025(9th Cir. Mar. 20, 2014) (quoting Brown & Williamson

25

Tobacco Corp. v. F.T.C., 710 F.2d 1165, 1177 (6th Cir. 1983)).

26
27
28

1

Refers to court’s electronic case filing (ECF) number. The motion was filed in case 3:14-cv-00213-RCJWGC, which was subsequently consolidated into case 3:12-cv-00538-MMD-WGC. (See ECF No. 66.)

Documents that have been traditionally kept secret, including grand jury transcripts and

1
2

warrant materials in a pre-indictment investigation, come within an exception to the general right

3

of public access. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178. Otherwise, “a strong presumption in favor of

4

access is the starting point.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
“A party seeking to seal a judicial record then bears the burden of overcoming this strong

5
6

presumption by meeting the ‘compelling reasons’ standard,” which means the party must “

7

articulate[] compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings ... that outweigh the

8

general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure[.]” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at

9

1178 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). “In general, ‘compelling reasons’

10

sufficient to outweigh the public’s interest in disclosure and justify sealing court records exist

11

when such ‘court files might have become a vehicle for improper purposes,’ such as the use of

12

records to gratify private spite, promote public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release

13

trade secrets.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (citing Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598).
The Ninth Circuit has applied the lesser “good cause” showing from Federal Rule of

14
15

Civil Procedure 26(c) in some circumstances, such as when a party seeks to seal materials filed

16

in connection with a discovery motion. See id. at 1179-80. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c)

17

governs protective orders issued in the discovery process and provides: “The court may, for good

18

cause, issue an order to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or

19

undue burden or expense....” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c).
Many courts within the Ninth Circuit, including this one, previously determined whether

20
21

to apply the “compelling reasons” standard or the lesser “good cause” standard by looking at

22

whether a motion was dispositive or non-dispositive. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179; see also

23

Center for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Group, LLC, --- F.3d ---, 2016 WL 142440, at *3 (9th Cir.

24

2016).

25

The Ninth Circuit recently clarified, however, that the key in determining which standard

26

to apply is not whether the proposed sealed documents accompany a dispositive or non-

27

dispositive motion. Center for Auto Safety, 2016 WL 142440, at * 6. “Rather, public access will

28

turn on whether the motion is more than tangentially related to the merits of a case.” Id.

-2-

1

Here, Defendants seek to seal documents in connection with a motion for summary

2

judgment, which clearly relates to the merits of the case. Therefore, the court must apply the

3

“compelling reasons” standard to determine whether or not the public should have access to the

4

Plaintiff’s medical records.

5

This court, and others within the Ninth Circuit, have recognized on various occasions that

6

the need to protect medical privacy qualifies as a “compelling reason” for sealing records. See,

7

e.g., San Ramon Regional Med. Ctr., Inc. v. Principal Life Ins. Co., 2011 WL89931, at *n.1

8

(N.D. Cal. Jan. 10, 2011); Abbey v. Hawaii Employers Mut. Ins. Co., 2010 WL4715793, at * 1-2

9

(D. HI. Nov. 15, 2010); G. v. Hawaii, 2010 WL 267483, at *1-2 (D.HI. June 25, 2010); Wilkins

10

v. Ahern, 2010 WL3755654 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 24, 2010); Lombardi v. TriWest Healthcare

11

Alliance Corp., 2009 WL 1212170, at * 1 (D.Ariz. May 4, 2009).

12

Here, Exhibit A to Defendants’ opposition to Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment

13

and Defendants’ cross-motion for summary judgment contains Plaintiff’s sensitive health

14

information, medical history, and treatment records. Balancing the need for the public’s access to

15

information regarding Plaintiff’s medical history, treatment, and condition against the need to

16

maintain the confidentiality of Plaintiff’s medical records weighs in favor of sealing this exhibit.

17

Therefore, Defendants’ motion (ECF NO. 57) is GRANTED.

18

IT IS SO ORDERED.

19
20
21

Dated: January 20, 2016.

_________________________________________
WILLIAM G. COBB
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-3-