Moreno v. Adamson et al

Filing 34

ORDER - Defendants' Motion to Seal (ECF No. 24 ) is GRANTED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carla Baldwin on 1/7/2021. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - AB)

Case 3:19-cv-00330-MMD-CLB Document 34 Filed 01/07/21 Page 1 of 4

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6

FLAVIO MORENO,

7
8
9
10
11

Plaintiff,

Case No. 3:19-CV-0330-MMD-CLB
ORDER

v.
KIM ADAMSON, et al.,
Defendants.
____________________________/

12

Before the court is defendants’ motion for leave to file physician’s notes pertaining

13

to plaintiff’s medical records under seal in support of defendants’ opposition to motion for

14

preliminary injunction (ECF No. 24).
64).

15

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

16

records and documents, including judicial records and documents.” See Kamakana v.

17

City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation

18

marks and citation omitted). “‘Throughout our history, the open courtroom has been a

19

fundamental feature of the American judicial system. Basic principles have emerged to

20

guide judicial discretion respecting public access to judicial proceedings. These principles

21

apply as well to the determination of whether to permit access to information contained in

22

court documents because court records often provide important, sometimes the only,

23

bases or explanations for a court’s decision.’” Oliner v. Kontrabecki, 745 F.3d 1024, 1025

24

(9th Cir. 2014) (quoting Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. F.T.C., 710 F.2d 1165,

25

1177 (6th Cir. 1983)).

26

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

27

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

28

general right of public access. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178. Otherwise, “a strong

Case 3:19-cv-00330-MMD-CLB Document 34 Filed 01/07/21 Page 2 of 4

1

presumption in favor of access is the starting point.” Id. (internal quotation marks and

2

citation omitted). “The presumption of access is ‘based on the need for federal courts,

3

although independent—indeed, particularly because they are independent—to have a

4

measure of accountability and for the public to have confidence in the administration of

5

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

6

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

7

(Amodeo II), 71 F.3d 1044, 1048 (2nd Cir. 1995); Valley Broad Co. v. U.S. Dist. Court-D.

8

Nev., 798 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1986)).

9

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

10

document under seal: the compelling reasons standard or the good cause standard. See

11

Center for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1096-97. Under the compelling reasons standard, “a

12

court may seal records only when it finds ‘a compelling reason and articulate[s] the factual

13

basis for its ruling, without relying on hypothesis or conjecture.” Id. (quoting Kamakana,

14

447 F.3d at 1179). “The court must then ‘conscientiously balance[ ] the competing

15

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

16

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

17

court.’” Id. (quoting Nixon v. Warner Comm., Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 599 (1978)). “Examples

18

include when a court record might be used to ‘gratify private spite or promote public

19

scandal,’ to circulate ‘libelous’ statements, or ‘as sources of business information that

20

might harm a litigant’s competitive standing.’” Id. (quoting Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598-99).

21

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

22

the exception to public access that had been applied to “sealed materials attached to a

23

discovery motion unrelated to the merits of a case.” Id. (citing Phillips ex rel. Estates of

24

Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1213-14 (9th Cir. 2002)). “The ‘good cause

25

language comes from Rule 26(c)(1), which governs the issuance of protective orders in

26

the discovery process: ‘The court may, for good cause, issue an order to protect a party

27

or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense.”

28

Id. (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)).

-2-

Case 3:19-cv-00330-MMD-CLB Document 34 Filed 01/07/21 Page 3 of 4

1
2

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

3

in assessing a motion for leave to file a document under seal is whether the documents

4

proposed for sealing accompany a motion that is “more than tangentially related to the

5

merits of a case.” Center for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1101. If that is the case, the

6

compelling reasons standard is applied. If not, the good cause standard is applied.

7

Here, defendants seek to file exhibits under seal in connection with their opposition

8

to plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction (ECF No. 21) which is unquestionably “more

9

than tangentially related to the merits of a case.” Therefore, the compelling reasons

10

standard applies.

11

This court, and others within the Ninth Circuit, have recognized that the need to

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

is because a person’s medical records contain sensitive and private information about

19

their health. While a plaintiff puts certain aspects of his medical condition at issue when

20

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

21

Eighth Amendment, that does not mean that the entirety of his medical records filed in

22

connection with a motion (which frequently contain records that pertain to unrelated

23

medical information) need be unnecessarily broadcast to the public. In other words, the

24

plaintiff’s interest in keeping his sensitive health information confidential outweighs the

25

public’s need for direct access to the medical records.

26

Here, the referenced exhibits contain plaintiff’s sensitive health information.

27

Balancing the need for the public’s access to information regarding plaintiff’s medical

28

history, treatment, and condition against the need to maintain the confidentiality of

-3-

Case 3:19-cv-00330-MMD-CLB Document 34 Filed 01/07/21 Page 4 of 4

1

plaintiff’s medical records weighs in favor of sealing these exhibits.

2

defendants’ motion to seal (ECF No. 24) is GRANTED.

3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

4

Therefore,

January 7, 2021
DATED: _____________________

5
6

____________________________________
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-4-