1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CHULA VISTA ELEMENTARY Case No.: 24cv0386-LL-JLB SCHOOL DISTRICT, 12 ORDER GRANTING JOINT Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, 13 MOTION TO FILE OFFICIAL v. ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD 14 UNDER SEAL ANA PENAGOS, Parent on Behalf of 15 A.P., Student, [ECF No. 18] 16 Defendant/Counter-Claimant. 17

18 On February 27, 2024, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant Chula Vista Elementary School 19 District filed a complaint against Defendant/Counter-Claimant A.P. (a minor), by and 20 through his guardian at litem, Ana Penagos, seeking to overturn portions of a hearing 21 decision from the State of California’s Office of Administrative Hearings (“OAH”), 22 pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education and Improvement Act (“IDEA”), 23

et seq. ECF No. 1. 24 On July 25, 2024, the parties filed a Joint Motion to Seal the Official Administrative 25 Record of that hearing in order to protect A.P.’s privacy. ECF No. 18. The parties have 26 lodged the unredacted administrative record with the Court to review in advance of 27 deciding this motion. ECF No. 19. Upon review, the Court GRANTS the Joint Motion to 28 file the OAH record under seal for the reasons set forth below. 1 I. LEGAL STANDARD 2 There is a presumptive right of public access to court records. See Nixon v. Warner 3 Comm., Inc.,

(1978). That right is “based on the need for federal courts, 4 although independent—indeed, particularly because they are independent—to have a 5 measure of accountability and for the public to have confidence in the administration of 6 justice.” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC,

(9th Cir. 2016) 7 (quotations omitted). 8 Parties seeking to seal documents in a dispositive motion must thus meet the high 9 threshold requiring “compelling reasons” with specific factual findings to support a 10 sealing. Kamakana v. City and Cty. of Honolulu,

, 1178–80 (9th Cir. 2006) 11 (citing Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.,

(9th Cir. 2003)). The 12 “compelling reasons” test requires showing more than just “good cause.”

This standard 13 applies even if the motion or its attachments were previously filed under seal or protective 14 order.

. 15 The Ninth Circuit has “carved out an exception” to the compelling reasons standard 16 for documents produced in discovery and documents not attached to a dispositive motion. 17 Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.,

(9th Cir. 2003) (citing Phillips 18 ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. General Motors Corp.,

(9th Cir. 2002)). To 19 seal such documents, the moving party need only provide “good cause” to show, San Jose 20 Mercury News, Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Court–N. Dist. (San Jose),

, 1102 (9th Cir. 21 1999), that “specific prejudice or harm will result.” Phillips, 307 F.3d at 1210–11 (citation 22 omitted). “If a court finds particularized harm will result from disclosure of information to 23 the public, then it balances the public and private interests to decide whether a protective 24 order is necessary.” Id. (citing Glenmede Trust Co. v. Thompson,

(3d Cir. 25 1995)). 26 Importantly, however, the Ninth Circuit has interpreted the terms “dispositive” and 27 “non-dispositive” loosely when determining which standard to apply. Ctr. for Auto Safety, 28

(“To only apply the compelling reasons test to the narrow category of 1 dispositive motions goes against the long held interest in ensuring the public’s 2 understanding of the judicial process and of significant public events.”) (quotations 3 omitted). Thus, where the sealed material “is more than tangentially related to the 4 underlying cause of action,” the Court applies the higher “compelling reasons” standard. 5

. 6 II. DISCUSSION 7 The parties move the Court to seal the record for the OAH hearing to protect “A.P.’s 8 overriding privacy interest” because the record contains his “pupil records, medical records 9 and/or information, and private and confidential information,” “including personally 10 identifiable pupil information.” ECF No. 18, at 2–3. The parties contend that the 11 information contained within the record “are protected from disclosure by both the Family 12 Educational Rights Privacy Act (“FERPA,” 20 U.S.C. § 1232g;

) and 13 the California Education Code (Ed. Code § 49076),” and that given the “nature of these 14 confidential records, as well as the volume of private information in, and length of, the 15 Administrative Record,” “redaction is not appropriate as a means of protecting A.P.’s 16 sensitive personal and confidential information.” Id. 17 FERPA prohibits federal funding of an education institution that “has a policy or 18 practice of releasing, or providing access to, any personally identifiable information in 19 education records” without the written consent of the student, a lawfully issued subpoena, 20 or a judicial order. 20 U.S.C. § 1232g(b)(2). The term “personally identifiable information” 21 means information “that, alone or in combination is linked or linkable to a specific student 22 that would allow a reasonable person in the school community, who does not have personal 23 knowledge of the relevant circumstances, to identify the student with reasonable certainty.” 24

. 25 Here, the parties provide compelling reasons to seal the OAH record. The OAH 26 record contains references to the learning disability, private educational records, and 27 personally identifiable information “of a minor, and thus, should be protected.” ECF No. 28 24, E.M. v. Poway Unified Sch. Dist., No. 19-cv-0689-JM-MSB, at *2 (S.D. Cal. July 29, 1 2019). Such material is “largely protected from public disclosure by both federal and state 2 law.” J.M. v. Oakland Unified Sch. Dist., No. 17-cv-4986-HSG,

, at *8 3 ||(N.D. Cal. Dec. 13, 2018). 4 The prohibited references here are also “too numerous to redact,” A.B. ex rel. □□□□□□ 5 San Francisco Unified Sch. Dist., No. C 07-4738 PJH,

, at *1 (N.D. 6 || Cal. Oct. 2, 2007), “as the administrative record is voluminous.” E.M., No. 19-cv-0689- 7 || JM-MSB, at *2. For instance, the parties’ exhibits span more than 1,000 pages and identify 8 ||A.P. by name ubiquitously and contain sensitive details pertaining to his educational 9 ||development. Likewise, the hearing transcripts span more than 600 pages and discuss 10 || A.P.’s educational records at length. 11 || UL CONCLUSION 12 Accordingly, the Court finds it appropriate to seal the entire OAH record in this 13 || matter. See Carmel Unified Sch. Dist. v. Hodges, No. 23-cv-0856-PCP,

, 14 *2 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 2023) (sealing entire OAH record); D.L. v. Poway Unified Sch. 15 || Dist., No. 19-cv-0780-GPC-RBB,

, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 1, 2019) 16 ||(same). The Joint Motion to file the entire OAH record under seal is GRANTED. 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 || Dated: August 19, 2024 NO 19 No) 20 Honorable Linda Lopez 5 United States District Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28