1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 FARIBA RASHIDIASL, Case No.: 23-CV-0325-GPC-DEB

11 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 12 v. DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST TO SEAL CERTAIN 13 MEP (ESIS/ARCH/CHUBB); IQARUS DOCKET ENTRIES (international SOS), 14 Defendants. 15

16 On February 17, 2023, Plaintiff Fariba Rashidiasl (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, 17 filed a complaint against Defendants MEP (ESIS/ARCH/CHUBB) and Iqarus 18 (International SOS) alleging she was denied medical benefits and compensation 19 under the Defense Base Act by Defendants MEP (ESIS/ARCH/CHUBB) and Iqarus’ 20 (international SOS). (Dkt. No. 1 at 2.) On October 3, 2023, the Court dismissed the 21 action for failing to state a claim and for failing to prosecute and entered judgment. (Dkt. 22 Nos. 20, 21.) 23 On November 13, 2025, Plaintiff reached out to the Court requesting it to seal all 24 her personal information, including her name, contact details, court records and any other 25 identifying information in her case. (Dkt. No. 24.) 26 There is a presumptive right of public access to court records based upon the 27 common law and the first amendment. See Nixon v. Warner Comm., Inc.,

, 28 1 597 (1978); Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. General Motors Corp.,

, 2 1212 13 (9th Cir. 2002); Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of Honolulu,

, 1178 3 (9th Cir. 2006) (“Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy 4 public records and documents, including judicial records and documents.’”). 5 Accordingly, “a party seeking to seal a judicial record then bears the burden of 6 overcoming this strong presumption by meeting the ‘compelling reasons’ standard.” 7 Center for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC,

(9th Cir. 2016) (citing 8 Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.,

(9th Cir. 2003)) (“The 9 common law right of access, however, is not absolute and can be overridden given 10 sufficiently compelling reasons for doing so.”). To overcome this strong presumption, 11 the party must “articulate compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that 12 outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure.” 13 Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178-79 (internal citations, quotation marks, and alterations 14 omitted). 15 District courts in this circuit have concluded that the need to protect medical 16 privacy qualifies as a compelling reason to seal records. Vega v. Honeywell Int'l, Inc., 17 No. 3:19-CV-0663 W (BGS),

, *3 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 23, 2021) (citation 18 omitted); see also A.C. v. City of Santa Clara, No. 13-CV-03276-HSG,

4076364, *1 (N.D. Cal. July 2, 2015) (finding that confidentiality concerns outweigh the 20 presumption of public access to court records where medical and mental health records 21 are concerned). Because medical records are confidential under the Health Insurance 22 Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”), some courts have gone so far as 23 to seal medical information sua sponte. See San Ramon Reg'l Med. Ctr., Inc. v. Principal 24 Life Ins. Co., No. 10–cv–02258–SBA,

, at *1 n.1 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 10, 25 2011) (“Although there is a presumption in favor of maintaining public access to court 26 records, the Court notes that medical records are deemed confidential under the [HIPAA] 27 In view of these considerations, the Court finds that the need to protect the Patient's 28 confidential medical information outweighs any necessity for disclosure, and sua sponte 1 || seals the aforementioned documents.”) (internal citations omitted). 2 Because documents attached to Plaintiff’s complaint include her medical history 3 supporting medical records, the Court finds there are compelling reasons to seal those 4 ||documents contained in Dkt Nos. 1-2, 1-3, and 1-4, and GRANTS Plaintiff’s request to 5 ||seal her medical records. However, Plaintiff has not shown any compelling reasons to 6 documents that include her name, contact details or any other identifying 7 ||information. Therefore, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ request to seal her name, contact 8 || details or any other identifying information. 9 Conclusion 10 Based on the above, the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Plaintiff’s 11 request to seal documents. The Court directs the Clerk of Court to seal Dkt. Nos. 1-2, □□ 12 ||3, and 1-4 as they include her medical history and medical records. 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 |! Dated: November 20, 2025 (2 apho Cs A ) 15 Hon. Gonzalo P. Curiel 16 United States District Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28