Hendrix v. State of Nevada et al

Filing 117

ORDER granting ECF Nos. 83 / 113 Motion for Leave to File Documents under seal. Signed by Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb on 11/17/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KW)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8
JAMAL DAMON HENDRIX,
9
10
11
12
13

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
STATE OF NEVADA, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
______________________________________)

3:15-cv-00155-MMD-WGC
ORDER
Re: ECF Nos. 83, 113

14
Before the court are two motions for leave to file under seal various documents submitted in
15
connection with Defendants’ partial motion for summary judgment. (ECF Nos. 83, 113.) In the first
16
motion (ECF No. 83), Defendants’ seek leave to file Exhibits A-E, H-K, which contain portions of
17
Plaintiff’s medical records under seal. In the second motion (ECF No. 113), Defendants seek leave to
18
file under seal Exhibit A to their reply brief, which also contains portions of Plaintiff’s medical records.
19
“Historically, courts have recognized a general right to inspect and copy public records and
20
documents, including judicial records and documents.” See Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu,
21
447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “‘Throughout our
22
history, the open courtroom has been a fundamental feature of the American judicial system. Basic
23
principles have emerged to guide judicial discretion respecting public access to judicial proceedings.
24
These principles apply as well to the determination of whether to permit access to information contained
25
in court documents because court records often provide important, sometimes the only, bases or
26
explanations for a court’s decision.’” Oliner v. Kontrabecki, 745 F.3d 1024, 1025 (9th Cir. 2014)
27
(quoting Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. F.T.C., 710 F.2d 1165, 1177 (6th Cir. 1983)).
28
///

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

starting point.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “The presumption of access is ‘based

5

on the need for federal courts, although independent—indeed, particularly because they are

6

independent—to have a measure of accountability and for the public to have confidence in the

7

administration of justice.’” Center for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Group, LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th

8

Cir. 2016), cert. denied, 137 S.Ct. 38 (Oct. 3, 2016) (quoting United States v. Amodeo (Amodeo II), 71

9

F.3d 1044, 1048 (2nd Cir. 1995); Valley Broad Co. v. U.S. Dist. Court-D. Nev., 798 F.2d 1289, 1294

10

(9th Cir. 1986)).

11

There are two possible standards a party must address when it seeks to file a document under

12

seal: the compelling reasons standard or the good cause standard. See Center for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d

13

at 1096-97. Under the compelling reasons standard, “a court may seal records only when it finds ‘a

14

compelling reason and articulate[s] the factual basis for its ruling, without relying on hypothesis or

15

conjecture.” Id. (quoting Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179). “The court must then ‘conscientiously balance[

16

] the competing interests of the public and the party who seeks to keep certain judicial records secret.”

17

Id. “What constitutes a ‘compelling reason’ is ‘best left to the sound discretion of the trial court.’” Id.

18

(quoting Nixon v. Warner Comm., Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 599 (1978)). “Examples include when a court

19

record might be used to ‘gratify private spite or promote public scandal,’ to circulate ‘libelous’

20

statements, or ‘as sources of business information that might harm a litigant’s competitive standing.’”

21

Id. (quoting Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598-99).

22

Center for Auto Safety described the good cause standard, on the other hand, as the exception to

23

public access that had been applied to “sealed materials attached to a discovery motion unrelated to the

24

merits of a case.” Id. (citing Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1213-

25

14 (9th Cir. 2002)). “The ‘good cause language comes from Rule 26(c)(1), which governs the issuance

26

of protective orders in the discovery process: ‘The court may, for good cause, issue an order to protect

27

a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense.” Id. (citing

28

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)).
2

1

The Ninth Circuit has clarified that the key in determining which standard to apply in assessing

2

a motion for leave to file a document under seal is whether the documents proposed for sealing

3

accompany a motion that is “more than tangentially related to the merits of a case.” Center for Auto

4

Safety, 809 F.3d at 1101. If that is the case, the compelling reasons standard is applied. If not, the good

5

cause standard is applied.

6

Here, Defendants seek to file exhibits under seal in connection with their motion for summary

7

judgment which is unquestionably “more than tangentially related to the merits of a case.” Therefore,

8

the compelling reasons standard applies. This court, and others within the Ninth Circuit, have recognized

9

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

10

San Ramon Regional Med. Ctr., Inc. v. Principal Life Ins. Co., 2011 WL89931, at *n.1 (N.D. Cal. Jan.

11

10, 2011); Abbey v. Hawaii Employers Mut. Ins. Co., 2010 WL4715793, at * 1-2 (D. HI. Nov. 15,

12

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

13

WL3755654 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 24, 2010); Lombardi v. TriWest Healthcare Alliance Corp., 2009 WL

14

1212170, at * 1 (D.Ariz. May 4, 2009). This is because a person’s medical records contain sensitive and

15

private information about their health. While a plaintiff puts certain aspects of his medical condition at

16

issue when he files an action alleging deliberate indifference to a serious medical need under the Eighth

17

Amendment, that does not mean that the entirety of his medical records filed in connection with a

18

motion (which frequently contain records that pertain to unrelated medical information) need be

19

unnecessarily broadcast to the public. In other words, the plaintiff’s interest in keeping his sensitive

20

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

21

///

22

///

23

///

24

///

25

///

26

///

27

///

28
3

1

Here, the referenced exhibits contain Plaintiff’s sensitive health information, medical history,

2

and treatment records. Balancing the need for the public’s access to information regarding Plaintiff’s

3

medical history, treatment, and condition against the need to maintain the confidentiality of Plaintiff’s

4

medical records weighs in favor of sealing these exhibits. Therefore, Defendants’ motions (ECF Nos.

5

83, 113) are GRANTED.

6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7

DATED: November 17, 2017.

8
9

____________________________________
WILLIAM G. COBB
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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