Nall v. Adamson
Filing
57
ORDER granting ECF No. 46 Motion to Seal. ORDER granting in part and denying in part ECF No. 50 Motion to Unseal. Within seven (7) days of the issuance of this order (6/11/2021), Defendants are directed to provide directly to Plaintiff, copies of the exhibits filed under seal at ECF No. 46 , at the NDOC's expense. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carla Baldwin on 6/4/2021. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SC)
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
3
TYRONE T.H. NALL,
4
5
6
7
Plaintiff,
Case No. 3:19-CV-00054-MMD-CLB
ORDER
v.
KIM ADAMSON, et al.,
Defendants.
8
9
Before the court is Defendants’ motion for leave to file medical records under seal
10
in support of Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 46), and Plaintiff’s
11
motion to unseal medical records. (ECF No. 50.) Defendants responded to the motion to
12
unseal, (ECF No. 53), and Plaintiff replied (ECF No. 54). For the reasons discussed
13
below, the court grants Defendants’ motion to seal (ECF No. 46), and grants, in part, and
14
denies, in part, Plaintiff’s motion to unseal. (ECF No. 50.)
15
“The courts of this country recognize a general right to inspect and copy public
16
records and documents, including judicial records and documents.” Courthouse News
17
Serv. v. Planet, 947 F.3d 581, 591 (9th Cir. 2020) (quoting Courthouse News Serv. v.
18
Brown, 908 F.3d 1063, 1069 (7th Cir. 2018)). Certain documents are exceptions to this
19
right and are generally kept secret for policy reasons, including grand jury transcripts and
20
warrant materials in a pre-indictment investigation. United States v. Bus. of Custer
21
Battlefield Museum & Store Located at Interstate 90, Exit 514, S. of Billings, Mont., 658
22
F.3d 1188, 1192 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d
23
1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006)).
24
If a party seeks to file a document under seal, there are two possible standards the
25
party must address: the compelling reasons standard or the good cause standard. See
26
Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096-97 (9th Cir. 2016). The
27
choice between the two standards depends on whether the documents proposed for
28
sealing accompany a motion that is “more than tangentially related” to the merits of the
1
case. Id. at 1099. If it is more than tangentially related, the compelling reasons standard
2
applies. If not, the good cause standard applies. Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1102.
3
Here, Defendants seek to file exhibits under seal in connection with their motion
4
for summary judgment (ECF No. 45), which are “more than tangentially related” to the
5
merits of a case. Therefore, the compelling reasons standard applies.
6
Under the compelling reasons standard, “a court may seal records only when it
7
finds ‘a compelling reason and articulate[s] the factual basis for its ruling, without relying
8
on hypothesis or conjecture.’” United States v. Carpenter, 923 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir.
9
2019) (quoting Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1096-97) (alteration in original). Finding
10
a compelling reason is “best left to the sound discretion” of the court. Ctr. for Auto Safety,
11
809 F.3d at 1097 (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 599 (1978)).
12
This court, and others within the Ninth Circuit, have recognized that the need to
13
protect medical privacy qualifies as a “compelling reason” for sealing records, since
14
medical records contain sensitive and private information about a person’s health. See,
15
e.g., Spahr v. Med. Dir. Ely State Prison, No. 3:19-CV-0267-MMD-CLB, 2020 WL 137459,
16
at *2 (D. Nev. Jan. 10, 2020); Sapp v. Ada Cnty. Med. Dep’t, No. 1:15-CV-00594-BLW,
17
2018 WL 3613978, at *6 (D. Idaho July 27, 2018); Karpenski v. Am. Gen. Life Companies,
18
LLC, No. 2:12-CV-01569RSM, 2013 WL 5588312, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 9, 2013). While
19
a plaintiff discloses aspects of his medical condition at issue when he files an action
20
alleging deliberate indifference to a serious medical need under the Eighth Amendment,
21
that does not mean that all his medical records filed in connection with a motion (which
22
often contain unrelated medical information) must be broadcast to the public. In other
23
words, the plaintiff’s interest in keeping his sensitive health information confidential
24
outweighs the public’s need for direct access to the medical records.
25
Here, the referenced exhibits contain Plaintiff’s sensitive health information,
26
medical history, and treatment records. Balancing the need for the public’s access to
27
information regarding Plaintiff’s medical history, treatment, and condition against the need
28
to maintain the confidentiality of Plaintiff’s medical records weighs in favor of sealing these
-2-
1
exhibits. Therefore, Defendants’ motion to seal (ECF No. 46) is GRANTED.
2
That being said, Plaintiff’s motion to unseal argues the records should not be
3
sealed because he needs copies of those records so he can meaningfully respond to
4
Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 50.) As this court has previously
5
ruled, inmates engaged in litigation directly involving medical records should have the
6
ability to possess relevant copies of the records. As such, while the court finds that
7
Plaintiff’s medical records should be sealed on the docket, the court grants Plaintiff’s
8
motion insofar as it requests that Plaintiff be given copies of the medical records filed in
9
support of the motion for summary judgment to be maintained in his cell. Accordingly,
10
Plaintiff’s motion to unseal (ECF No. 50) is GRANTED, IN PART, AND DENIED, IN
11
PART. Within seven (7) days of the issuance of this order, Defendants are directed to
12
provide directly to Plaintiff, copies of the exhibits filed under seal at ECF No. 46, at the
13
NDOC’s expense.
14
IT IS SO ORDERED.
15
June 4, 2021
DATED: ________________
16
17
____________________________________
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-
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?