Altheide v. Dzurenda

4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6| JASON ALTHEIDE, Case No. 3:18-CV-0408-MMD-CLB 7 Plaintiff, ORDER 8 v. 9| WILLIAMS MOORE, etal., 10 Defendants.

11 -—_____ 12 Before the court are defendants’ motions for leave to file medical records under 13} sealin opposition to plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and in support of defendants’ 14| motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 86 & 94).

15 “Historically, courts have recognized a general right to inspect and copy public | records and documents, including judicial records and documents.” See Kamakana v. | City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation 18) marks and citation omitted). “Throughout our history, the open courtroom has been a fundamental feature of the American judicial system. Basic principles have emerged to 201 guide judicial discretion respecting public access to judicial proceedings. These principles | apply as well to the determination of whether to permit access to information contained in 22| court documents because court records often provide important, sometimes the only, | bases or explanations for a court's decision.” Olfner v. Kontrabecki, 745 F,3d 1024, 1025 | (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. F.T.C., 710 F.2d 1165, 25| 4177 (6th Cir. 1983)).

26 Documents that have been traditionally kept secret, including grand jury transcripts □ and warrant materials in a pre-indictment investigation, come within an exception to the | general right of public access. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178. Otherwise, “a strong | presumption in favor of access is the starting point.” /d. (internal quotation marks and 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 have a 4) measure of accountability and for the public to have confidence in the administration of | justice.” Center for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Group, LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 6| 2016), cert. denied, 137 S.Ct. 38 (Oct. 3, 2016) (quoting United States v. Amodeo 7| (Amodeo Ii), 71 F.3d 1044, 1048 (2nd Cir. 1995); Valley Broad Co. v. U.S. Dist. Court-D.

8| Nev., 798 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1986)).

9 There are two possible standards a party must address when it seeks to file a | document under seal: the compelling reasons standard or the good cause standard. See i1| Center for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1096-97. Under the compelling reasons standard, “a court may seal records only when it finds ‘a compelling reason and articulate[s] the factual | basis for its ruling, without relying on hypothesis or conjecture.” /d. (quoting Kamakana, 14| 447 F.3d at 1179). “The court must then ‘conscientiously balance[ ] the competing | interests of the public and the party who seeks to keep certain judicial records secret.” /d.

16| “What constitutes a ‘compelling reason’ is ‘best left to the sound discretion of the trial | court.” fd. (quoting Nixon v. Warner Comm., Inc., 435 U.S. 989, 599 (1978)). “Examples | include when a court record might be used to ‘gratify private spite or promote public scandal,’ to circulate ‘libelous’ statements, or ‘as sources of business information that | might harm a litigant’s competitive standing.” /d. (quoting Nixon, 435 U.S, at 598-99}.

21 Center for Auto Safety described the good cause standard, on the other hand, as the exception to public access that had been applied to “sealed materials attached to a | discovery motion unrelated to the merits of a case.” /d. (citing Phillios ex ret. Estates of 24| Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1213-14 (9th Cir. 2002)). “The ‘good cause | language comes from Rule 26(c)(1), which governs the issuance of protective orders in | the discovery process: ‘The court may, for good cause, issue an order to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense.”

28 | Id. (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)).

-2- 2 The Ninth Circuit has clarified that the key in determining which standard to apply 3| in assessing a motion for leave to file a document under seal is whether the documents 4! proposed for sealing accompany a motion that is “more than tangentially related to the | merits of a case.” Center for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1101. If that is the case, the | compelling reasons standard is applied. If not, the good cause standard is applied.

7 Here, defendants seek to file exhibits under seal in connection with their opposition | to plaintiffs motion for summary judgment and in support of their motion for summary | judgment (ECF Nos. 85 & 93) which are unquestionably “more than tangentially related | tothe merits of a case.” Therefore, the compelling reasons standard applies.

This court, and others within the Ninth Circuit, have recognized that the need to | protect medical privacy qualifies as a “compelling reason” for sealing records. See, é.g., San Ramon Regional Med. Ctr., Inc. v. Principal Life Ins. Co., 2011 WL89931, at *n.1 14) (N.D. Cal. Jan. 10, 2011); Abbey v. Hawaii Employers Mut. Ins. Co., 2010 WL4715793, | at*1-2(D. HI. Nov. 15, 2010); G. v. Hawaii, 2010 WL 267483, at “1-2 (D.HI. June 25, 16} 2010); Wilkins v. Ahern, 2010 WL3755654 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 24, 2010); Lombardi v. 17| TriWest Healthcare Alliance Corp., 2009 WL 1212170, at * 1 (D.Ariz. May 4, 2009). This | is because a person’s medical records contain sensitive and private information about | their health. While a plaintiff puts certain aspects of his medical condition at issue when | he files an action alleging deliberate indifference to a serious medical need under the 21| Eighth Amendment, that does not mean that the entirety of his medical records filed in connection with a motion (which frequently contain records that pertain to unrelated | medical information) need be unnecessarily broadcast to the public. In other words, the plaintiff's interest in keeping his sensitive health information confidential outweighs the | public's need for direct access to the medical records.

26 Here, the referenced exhibits contain plaintiffs sensitive health information, 27| medical history, and treatment records. Balancing the need for the public's access to | information regarding plaintiff's medical history, treatment, and condition against the need -3- | to maintain the confidentiality of plaintiffs medical records weighs in favor of sealing these 4| exhibits. Therefore, defendants’ motions to seal (ECF Nos. 86 & 94) are GRANTED.

5 IT IS SO ORDERED.

6 DATED: _ August 26, 2020 _ 7 lls £ _.

INITED STATESMAGISTRATE JUDGE 9 no

-4-