1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ASYA WESTON, No. 2:25-cv-02364-DJC-CKD (PS) 12 Plaintiffs, 13 v. ORDER 14 WIP 800 J LOFTS, et. al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Proceeding pro se, plaintiffs Asya Weston and Corinne Marshall initiated this action by 18 filing a complaint. (ECF No. 1.) On December 2, 2025, plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint 19 (“TAC”). (ECF No. 28.) Plaintiffs’ request to seal documents is before the court. (ECF Nos. 30, 20 31.) Plaintiffs have also filed a motion for a twenty-one day extension of time to file a second 21 amended complaint (“SAC”) (ECF No. 26) and a motion for one day extension of time to file the 22 TAC (ECF No. 29). Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time to file the SAC is DENIED as 23 moot, because the Court already granted leave for plaintiffs to file a TAC (ECF No. 25), and 24 plaintiffs have filed the TAC (ECF No. 28). Furthermore, the Court accepts plaintiffs TAC, and 25 the motion for a one-day extension of time is GRANTED. (ECF No. 29.) 26 The TAC includes over 300 pages of exhibits, including Exhibits 19, 20, and 22. Plaintiffs 27 seek to seal Exhibits 19-22. (ECF No. 30.) Exhibit 19 is a police report. (ECF No. 28-1 at 286- 28 90.) There are two Exhibit 20s in the TAC. One is a hotel receipt (ECF No. 28-1 at 338) and the 1 other includes medical records (ECF No. 28-1 at 301-23). Exhibit 22 is a “medical delay 2 declaration.” (ECF No. 28-1 at 298). Plaintiff states Exhibit 21 is academic documents (ECF No. 3 30 at 4) but Exhibit 21 is not attached to the TAC. Plaintiff states sealing Exhibit 22 is appropriate 4 because the “information is highly sensitive and protected under federal privacy laws including 5 [Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (“HIPPA”)], and its public disclosure could 6 cause undue harm or embarrassment to the Plaintiffs.” (ECF No. 30 at 3.) Plaintiff seeks to seal 7 the other documents because they include information related to a minor. (Id. at 4.) 8 Requests to seal documents are procedurally governed by Local Rule 141. Documents 9 may only be sealed by written order, upon the showing required by applicable law. See Local 10 Rule 141(a). Local Rule 140 discusses redactions, and lists information that shall be redacted. See 11 Local Rule 140. 12 Courts recognize “a general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, 13 including judicial records and documents.” Nixon v. Warner Commnc’ns, Inc.,

, 597 14 (1978). Thus, courts in the Ninth Circuit “start with a strong presumption in favor of access to 15 court records.” Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.,

(9th Cir. 2003). 16 Parties seeking to seal records attached to a motion that is “more than tangentially related to the 17 merits of a case” must satisfy the “compelling reasons” standard. Ctr. For Auto Safety v. Chrysler 18 Grp., LLC,

(9th Cir. 2016); see Perimeter Sols., L.P. v. Fortress N. Am., 19 L.L.C.,

, at *1-2 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 28, 2024) (applying the compelling reasons 20 standard to a request to seal an exhibit to a complaint). 21 To decide whether the party requesting to seal has carried its burden under the compelling 22 reasons standard, the court balances the reasons for secrecy with the public’s interests in 23 disclosure. See Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu,

, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006). The 24 court cannot rely on “hypothesis or conjecture” nor on assertions that merely cite a general 25 category of privilege. See id. at 1184. Instead, a party that wishes to keep its documents secret 26 must point out a “specific linkage” between its interests in secrecy and those documents. See id. 27 at 1182 (“[C]onclusory offerings do not rise to the level of ‘compelling reasons’ sufficiently 28 specific to bar the public access to the documents.”), 1184. When, however, the material sought 1 to be sealed is at most “tangentially related to the merits of a case,” a request to seal may be 2 granted on a showing of “good cause.” Center for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Group, LLC,

(9th Cir. 2016). Under this Court’s Local Rule 141, documents may only be 4 sealed by written order upon the showing required by applicable law. E.D. Cal. Local Rule 5 141(a). 6 First, plaintiffs have not attached Exhibit 21 to their TAC. Accordingly, the request to seal 7 Exhibit 21 is denied without prejudice. 8 Second, plaintiffs request to seal Exhibit 19 to the TAC, which is a police report. (ECF 9 No. 28-1 at 286-90.) Plaintiffs’ reasons for sealing are that the document “[i]ncludes contact info 10 and minor’s name.” (ECF No. 30 at 4.) A review of the police report shows that any sensitive 11 information is already anonymized by the report itself, so no contact information is actually 12 included in the report. (See ECF No. 28-1 at 289.) This report includes an email address, but this 13 is the same email address plaintiffs provided to the Court. Additionally, the report contains 14 plaintiff Corinne Marshall’s name, which is presumably the minor referred to in the request to 15 seal. However, plaintiff Marshall’s name was provided in full to the Court previously. Further, 16 there is indication that plaintiff Marshall is not a minor, because in the motion for temporary 17 restraining order filed on August 20, 2025, plaintiffs state plaintiff Marshall is eighteen.1 (ECF 18 No. 3 at 2.) Accordingly, plaintiffs do not show good cause or compelling reasons for shielding 19 from public view the information contained in the police report at Exhibit 19. Plaintiffs’ request 20 to seal Exhibit 19 is denied. 21 Third, plaintiffs request to seal Exhibit 22, which is a “Medical Delay Declaration,” that 22 “[c]ontains protected medical information (HIPAA).” (ECF No. 30 at 4.) Exhibit 22 to the TAC 23 “supplements Plaintiffs’ claims for special and actual damages resulting from medically 24 documented health consequences and educational interference due to ongoing housing retaliation 25

1 The Court also notes that the first amended complaint states Corinne Marshall is Asya 26 Weston’s “18-year-old daughter” who was a “minor during initial acts (April 2024-August 27 2025).” (ECF No. 6 at 3.) The Court notes this fact from the first amended complaint only to determine plaintiff Marshall’s age and will not consider the first amended complaint for any other 28 purpose. 1 and harassment.” (ECF No. 28-1 at 298-99.) Plaintiffs claim this information is “highly sensitive 2 and protected under federal privacy laws.” (ECF No. 30 at 3.) Plaintiffs also request to seal 3 Exhibit 20, which plaintiffs state is “hotel/displacement receipts” that “[c]ontains address/location 4 and minor’s travel info.” (ECF No. 30 at 4.) A review of the TAC shows that there are two 5 Exhibit 20s. The first contains medical records. (ECF No. 28-1 at 301-23.) 6 Plaintiff does not show good cause or compelling reasons for shielding from public view 7 the medical delay declaration and the medical information in Exhibits 202 and 22. Claims that 8 material is “sensitive” and “could cause undue harm or embarrassment” (ECF No. 30 at 3) do not 9 suffice to show good cause. Plaintiffs do not show compelling reasons for sealing material 10 containing information about medicals condition also claimed to be “sensitive.” The privacy rule 11 of HIPAA applies to specific covered entities: a health plan, a health care clearinghouse, and a 12 health care provider who transmits health information in electronic form.

(a). 13 HIPAA allows for disclosure of medical information in the course of administrative or judicial 14 proceedings. See

(e)(1). HIPAA does not provide a basis for shielding from 15 public view a litigant’s medical condition placed in issue in a case. Here, plaintiffs include 16 emotional distress and mental suffering in their request for damages. (See, e.g., ECF No. 28 at 19, 17 30, 31, 36.) Plaintiffs have put their medical conditions at issue in this case. Exhibit 22 itself 18 states that it supports plaintiffs’ claims for actual damages and emotional distress. (ECF No. 28-1 19 at 298.) The request to seal does not articulate how failing to seal documents in this case would 20 result in a substantial probability that a compelling interest would be harmed or how disclosure of 21 the information could place plaintiffs or anyone else in danger. 22 Lastly, plaintiffs request to seal a second exhibit labeled Exhibit 20, which plaintiffs state 23 is “hotel/displacement receipts” that “[c]ontains address/location and minor’s travel info.” (ECF 24 No. 30 at 4; see ECF No. 28-1 at 338.) This exhibit is a hotel receipt. Plaintiffs do not show good 25 cause or compelling reasons for shielding from public view this hotel receipt. As stated above, 26 2 The Court notes that the medical records included in Exhibit 20 (ECF No. 28-1 at 301-23) 27 already include some redactions. Unless these redactions comply with Local Rule 140, they are technically improper. However, at this time, the Court does not require that plaintiffs re-file 28 unredacted versions. 1 | there is evidence that plaintiff Marshall is not a minor. Further, plaintiffs seek hotel expenses as a 2 | form of damages, so they have put this at issue in the case. (See ECF No. 28 at 9.) 3 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: 4 1. Plaintiffs’ requests to seal (ECF Nos. 30, 31) are DENIED 5 a. Plaintiffs’ request to seal Exhibits 19, 20, and 22 are DENIED 6 b. Plaintiffs’ request to seal Exhibit 21 is DENIED without prejudice; 7 2. Plaintiffs’ motion for extension of time (ECF No. 26) is DENIED as moot; 8 3. Plaintiffs’ motion for extension of time (ECF No. 29) is GRANTED. 9 || Dated: December 8, 2025 / a8 } i | / p , {a ce

11 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 12 13. || 5, west.2364.25 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28