2)

4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 ROBERT SPAHR, Case No. 3:19-CV-0267-MMD-CLB 7 Plaintiff, ORDER

MEDICAL DIRECTOR ELY STATE 10 | PRISON, et al., | Defendants. | Before the court is defendants’ motion for leave to file medical records under sea 13) in the course of their providing the court with updates on plaintiffs medical treatment (ECF M4 | No. 31). “Historically, courts have recognized a general right to inspect and copy publi 16 records and documents, including judicial records and documents.” See Kamakana v City and County of Honolulu,

(9th Cir. 2006) (internal □□□□□□□□□ 18 marks and citation omitted). “Throughout our history, the open courtroom has been 19 fundamental feature of the American judicial system. Basic principles have emerged t 20 guide judicial discretion respecting public access to judicial proceedings. These principle: a | apply as well to the determination of whether to permit access to information contained i court documents because court records often provide important, sometimes the only 23 | bases or explanations for a court's decision.” Oliner v. Kontrabecki,

, 102 24 | (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. F.T.C.,

*° | 4177 (6th Cir. 1983)). 26 Documents that have been traditionally kept secret, including grand jury transcript 27 and warrant materials in a pre-indictment investigation, come within an exception to th 28 general right of public access. See Kamakana,

. Otherwise, “a stron

1 | presumption in favor of access is the starting point.” /d. (internal quotation marks anc 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 □□□□ 4| measure of accountability and for the public to have confidence in the administration o 5 | justice.” Center for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Group, LLC,

(9th Cir 6| 2016), cert. denied,

(Oct. 3, 2016) (quoting United States v. Amodec 71 (Amodeo II),

(2nd Cir. 1995); Valley Broad Co. v. U.S. Dist. Court-D 8| Nev.,

(9th Cir. 1986)). 9 There are two possible standards a party must address when it seeks to file 10 | document under seal: the compelling reasons standard or the good cause standard. Sex 11 | Center for Auto Safety,

. Under the compelling reasons standard, □□ 12 | court may seal records only when it finds ‘a compelling reason and articulate[s] the factua 13 | basis for its ruling, without relying on hypothesis or conjecture.” /d. (quoting Kamakana 14 |

). “The court must then ‘conscientiously balance[ ] the competins 15 | interests of the public and the party who seeks to keep certain judicial records secret.” /a 16| “What constitutes a ‘compelling reason’ is ‘best left to the sound discretion of the tria 17| court.”

(quoting Nixon v. Warmer Comm., Inc.,

(1978)). “Example: 18 | include when a court record might be used to ‘gratify private spite or promote publi 19 | scandal,’ to circulate ‘libelous’ statements, or ‘as sources of business information tha 201 might harm a litigant’s competitive standing.” /d. (quoting Nixon,

). 21 | Center for Auto Safety described the good cause standard, on the other hand, a 22 | the exception to public access that had been applied to “sealed materials attached to | 23 | discovery motion unrelated to the merits of a case.” /d. (citing Phillips ex rel. Estates c 24 | Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp.,

(9th Cir. 2002)). “The ‘good caus: 25 | language comes from Rule 26(c)(1), which governs the issuance of protective orders i 26 | the discovery process: ‘The court may, for good cause, issue an order to protect a part 27| or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense. 28;

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

-2-

1| 2 | The Ninth Circuit has clarified that the key in determining which standard to appl 3 in assessing a motion for leave to file a document under seal is whether the document: 4 | proposed for sealing accompany a motion that is “more than tangentially related to the 5 | merits of a case.” Center for Auto Safety,

. 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 the course of their providing | the court with updates on plaintiffs medical treatment (ECF No. 31) which | □ unquestionably “more than tangentially related to the merits of a case.” Therefore, the 10 | compelling reasons standard applies. 11 | This court, and others within the Ninth Circuit, have recognized that the need t 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. 14 | (N.D. Cal. Jan. 10, 2011); Abbey v. Hawaii Employers Mut. Ins. Co., 2010 WL4715792 15 | at * 1-2 (D. HI. Nov. 15, 2010); G. v. Hawaii,

, at *1-2 (D.HI. June 2¢ □□ 2010); Wilkins v. Ahern, 2010 WL3755654 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 24, 2010); Lombardi \ TriWest Healthcare Alliance Corp.,

, at * 1 (D.Ariz. May 4, 2009). Thi 18| is because a person’s medical records contain sensitive and private information abot 19 | their health. While a plaintiff puts certain aspects of his medical condition at issue whe 20 | he files an action alleging deliberate indifference to a serious medical need under th 21 | Eighth Amendment, that does not mean that the entirety of his medical records filed i 22 | connection with a motion (which frequently contain records that pertain to unrelate 23 | medical information) need be unnecessarily broadcast to the public. In other words, th 24 | plaintiff's interest in keeping his sensitive health information confidential outweighs th 25 | public’s need for direct access to the medical records. 26 Here, the referenced exhibits contain plaintiffs sensitive health informatior 27| medical history, and treatment records. Balancing the need for the public's access t 28 | information regarding plaintiff's medical history, treatment, and condition against the nee

-3-

2 3 | to maintain the confidentiality of plaintiffs medical records weighs in favor of sealing these 4| exhibits. Therefore, defendants’ motion to seal (ECF No. 31) is GRANTED. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 pateD: [//O/ 2070 é : 7 FJ KA V7 AL 3 NT ATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-4-