Spahr v. Medical Director Ely State Prison

1 | | | | UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT | DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6| ROBERT SPAHR, Case No. 3:19-CV-0267-MMD-CLB 7 Plaintiff, ORDER | V. 9| MEDICAL DIRECTOR ELY STATE 10 PRISON, et al., Wl | Defendants. / pe, | Before the court is defendants’ motion for leave to file medical records under □□ | in support their opposition to plaintiff's request for emergency injunction (ECF No. 18).

14 | “Historically, courts have recognized a general right to inspect and copy puk IS | fecords and documents, including judicial records and documents.” See Kamakana | City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 11 72, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal quotati M7 | marks and citation omitted). “Throughout our history, the open courtroom has been | fundamental feature of the American judicial system. Basic principles have emerged | guide judicial discretion respecting public access to judicial proceedings. These □□□□□□□□ | apply as well to the determination of whether to permit access to information contained | court documents because court records often provide important, sometimes the on | bases or explanations for a court’s decision.” Oliner v. Kontrabecki, 745 F.3d 1024, 10: | (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. F.T.C., 710 F.2d 116 ** | 4477 (6th Cir. 1983).

25 | Documents that have been traditionally kept secret, including grand jury transcrip | and warrant materials in a pre-indictment investigation, come within an exception to th | general right of public access. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178. Otherwise, “a stron | Presumption in favor of access is the Starting point.” /d. (internal quotation marks an | citation omitted). “The presumption of access is ‘based on the need for federal Col | although independent—indeed, particularly because they are independent—to hav | measure of accountability and for the public to have confidence in the administratio | justice.” Center for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Group, LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th | 2016), cert. denied, 137 S.Ct. 38 (Oct. 3, 2016) (quoting United States v. Amo 6} (Amodeo Il), 71 F.3d 1044, 1048 (2nd Cir. 1995); Valley Broad Co. v. U.S. Dist. Cour 7| Nev., 798 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1986)).

8 | There are two possible standards a party must address when it seeks to fil | document under seal: the compelling reasons standard or the good cause □□□□□□□□□ | Center for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1096-97. Under the compelling reasons standard | court may seal records only when it finds ‘a compelling reason and articulate[s] the fac | basis for its ruling, without relying on hypothesis or conjecture.” /d. (quoting Kamaka | 447 F.3d at 1179). “The court must then ‘conscientiously balance[ ] the compet | interests of the public and the party who seeks to keep certain judicial records secret.”

15 | “What constitutes a ‘compelling reason’ is ‘best left to the sound discretion of the | | court.” /d. (quoting Nixon v. Warner Comm., Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 599 (1978)). “Exame | include when a court record might be used to ‘gratify private spite or promote pul | scandal,’ to circulate ‘libelous’ statements, or ‘as sources of business information t | might harm a litigant’s competitive standing.” /d. (quoting Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598-99).

20 | Center for Auto Safety described the good cause standard, on the other hand, | the exception to public access that had been applied to “sealed materials attached t | discovery motion unrelated to the merits of a case.” /d. (citing Phillips ex rel. Estates | Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1213-14 (9th Cir. 2002)). “The ‘good cat | language comes from Rule 26(c)(1), which governs the issuance of protective orders | the discovery process: ‘The court may, for good cause, issue an order to protect a pz | or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expens | Id. (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)).

28 | | | The Ninth Circuit has clarified that the key in determining which standard to a 2) in assessing a motion for leave to file a document under seal is whether the docum | proposed for sealing accompany a motion that is “more than tangentially related to | merits of a case.” Center for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1101. If that is the case, | compelling reasons standard is applied. If not, the good cause standard is applied.

6 | Here, defendants seek to file exhibits under seal in connection with their □□□□□□ | to plaintiffs request for emergency injunction (ECF No. 17) which is unquestionably “rr | than tangentially related to the merits of a case.” Therefore, the compelling reas | standard applies.

10 | This court, and others within the Ninth Circuit, have recognized that the □□□ | protect medical privacy qualifies as a “compelling reason” for sealing records. See, e | San Ramon Regional Med. Ctr., Inc. v. Principal Life Ins. Co., 2011 WL89931, at * | (N.D. Cal. Jan. 10, 2011): Abbey v. Hawaii Employers Mut. Ins. Co., 2010 WL47157 | at* 1-2 (D. HI. Nov. 15, 2010): G. v. Hawaii, 2010 WL 267483, at *1-2 (D.HI. June.

15 | 2010); Wilkins v. Ahem, 2010 WL3755654 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 24, 2010); Lombaral 16| TriWest Healthcare Alliance Corp., 2009 WL 1212170, at * 1 (D.Ariz. May 4, 2009). T | is because a person's medical records contain sensitive and private information ab | their health. While a plaintiff puts certain aspects of his medical condition at issue wh | he files an action alleging deliberate indifference to a serious medical need under 1 | Eighth Amendment, that does not mean that the entirety of his medical records filed | connection with a motion (which frequently contain records that pertain to unrelat | medical information) need be unnecessarily broadcast to the public. In other words, t | plaintiff's interest in keeping his sensitive health information confidential outweighs t | public's need for direct access to the medical records.

25 | Here, the referenced exhibits contain plaintiffs sensitive health informatic | medical history, and treatment records. Balancing the need for the public’s access | information regarding plaintiffs medical history, treatment, and condition against the nex | | _3- 2! tomaintain the confidentiality of plaintiffs medical records weighs in favor of sealing tt | exhibits. Therefore, defendants’ motion to seal (ECF No. 18) is GRANTED.

4 | IT IS SO ORDERED.

5 | DATED:__l/Zw/Lold | Rebel | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 4.