Carmichael v. Aranas et al
Filing
24
ORDER granting Defendants' ECF Nos. 15 , 19 Motions to Seal. Signed by Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb on 3/10/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KR)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
6
7
RICHARD LEE CARMICHAEL,
Plaintiff,
8
ORDER
v.
9
10
Case No. 3:17-cv-00025-MMD-WGC
ROMEO ARANAS, et. al.,
Defendants.
11
12
Before the court are Defendants’ Motions for Leave to File Medical Records Under Seal
13
14
15
16
in support of their opposition to Plaintiff’s pending motion for temporary restraining
order/preliminary injunction. (Electronic Case Filing (ECF) Nos. 15, 19.) Plaintiff did not
oppose the motions.
“Historically, courts have recognized a general right to inspect and copy public records
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
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).
“‘Throughout our history, the open courtroom has been a fundamental feature of the American
judicial system. Basic principles have emerged to guide judicial discretion respecting public
access to judicial proceedings. These principles apply as well to the determination of whether to
permit access to information contained in court documents because court records often provide
important, sometimes the only, bases or explanations for a court’s decision.’” Oliner v.
Kontrabecki, 745 F.3d 1024, 1025 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting Brown & Williamson Tobacco
Corp. v.. F.T.C., 710 F.2d 1165, 1177 (6th Cir. 1983)).
///
///
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
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 Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178. Otherwise, “a strong presumption in favor of
access is the starting point.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “The
presumption of access is ‘based on the need for federal courts, although independent—indeed,
particularly because they are independent—to have a measure of accountability and for the
public to have confidence in the administration of justice.’” Center for Auto Safety v. Chrysler
Group, LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2016), cert. denied, 137 S.Ct. 38 (Oct. 3, 2016)
(quoting United States v. Amodeo (Amodeo II), 71 F.3d 1044, 1048 (2nd Cir. 1995); Valley
Broad Co. v. U.S. Dist. Court-D. Nev., 798 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1986)).
There are two possible standards a party must address when it seeks to file a document
under seal: the compelling reasons standard or the good cause standard. See Center for Auto
Safety, 809 F.3d at 1096-97. Under the compelling reasons standard, “a court may seal records
only when it finds ‘a compelling reason and articulate[s] the factual basis for its ruling, without
relying on hypothesis or conjecture.” Id. (quoting Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179). “The court
must then ‘conscientiously balance[ ] the competing interests of the public and the party who
seeks to keep certain judicial records secret.” Id. “What constitutes a ‘compelling reason’ is ‘best
left to the sound discretion of the trial court.’” Id. (quoting Nixon v. Warner Comm., Inc.,
435 U.S. 589, 599 (1978)). “Examples include when a court record might be used to ‘gratify
private spite or promote public scandal,’ to circulate ‘libelous’ statements, or ‘as sources of
business information that might harm a litigant’s competitive standing.’” Id. (quoting Nixon,
435 U.S. at 598-99).
Center for Auto Safety described the good cause standard, on the other hand, as the
exception to public access that had been applied to “sealed materials attached to a discovery
motion unrelated to the merits of a case.” Id. (citing Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen.
Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1213-14 (9th Cir. 2002)). “The ‘good cause language comes from
Rule 26(c)(1), which governs the issuance of protective orders in the discovery process: ‘The
court may, for good cause, issue an order to protect a party or person from annoyance,
-2-
1
embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense.” Id. (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)).
2
3
4
5
6
The Ninth Circuit has clarified that the key in determining which standard to apply in
assessing a motion for leave to file a document under seal is whether the documents proposed for
sealing accompany a motion that is “more than tangentially related to the merits of a case.”
Center for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1101 (9th Cir. 2016). If that is the case, the compelling
reasons standard is applied. If not, the good cause standard is applied.
7
8
9
10
11
Here, Defendants seek to file exhibits under seal in connection with their opposition to
Plaintiff’s pending motion for temporary restraining order/preliminary injunction. To obtain a
temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction, a plaintiff must demonstrate a likelihood
of success on the merits; therefore, the motion can be said to be “more than tangentially related
to the merits of a case.” Therefore, the compelling reasons standard applies.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
This court, and others within the Ninth Circuit, have recognized that the need to protect
medical privacy qualifies as a “compelling reason” for sealing records. 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). This is because a person’s medical records contain
sensitive and private information about their health. While a plaintiff puts certain aspects of his
medical condition at issue when he files an action alleging deliberate indifference to a serious
medical need under the Eighth Amendment, that does not mean that the entirety of his medical
records filed in connection with a motion (which frequently contain records that pertain to
unrelated medical information) need be unnecessarily broadcast to the public. In other words, the
plaintiff’s interest in keeping his sensitive health information confidential outweighs the public’s
need for direct access to the medical records.
///
///
///
-3-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Here, the referenced exhibits contain Plaintiff’s sensitive health information, medical
history, and treatment records. 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 exhibits.
Therefore, Defendants’ motions (ECF Nos. 15, 19.) are GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: March 10, 2017.
8
9
10
__________________________________________
WILLIAM G. COBB
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
-4-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?