Burns v. Sandoval

4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6] DAVID BURNS, Case No. 3:18-CV-0086-MMD-CLB 7 Plaintiff, ORDER 8 V. 9] TASHEENA SANDOVAL, et al., 10 Defendants.

11 $$ —__!

12 Before the court is defendants’ motion for leave to file medical records under seal | in support of defendants’ motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 106).

14 “Historically, courts have recognized a general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and documents.” See Kamakana v. 16] City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir, 2006) (internal quotation 17| 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 19| guide judicial discretion respecting public access to judicial proceedings. These principles 20| apply as well to the determination of whether to permit access fo information contained in 211 court documents because court records often provide important, sometimes the only, | bases or explanations for a court's decision.” Oliner v. Kontrabecki, 745 F.3d 1024, 1025 23| (8th Cir. 2014) (quoting Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. F.T.C., 710 F.2d 1165, 24| 1177 (6th Cir. 1983)).

25 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 27 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 | citation omitted). “The presumption of access is ‘based on the need for federal courts, although independent—indeed, particularly because they are independent—to have a | measure of accountability and for the public to have confidence in the administration of 4| justice.” Center for Auto Safety v. Chrysier Group, LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 5| 2016), cert, denied, 137 S.Ct. 38 (Oct. 3, 2016) (quoting United States v. Amodeo 6| (Amodeo il), 71 F.3d 1044, 1048 (2nd Cir. 1995); Valley Broad Co. v. U.S. Dist. Court-D.

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

8 There are two possible standards a party must address when it seeks fo file a 9| document under seal: the compelling reasons standard or the good cause standard. See | 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, | 447 F.3d at 1179). “The court must then ‘conscientiously balance[ ] the competing 14] interests of the public and the party who seeks to keep certain judicial records secret.” /d. | “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. 589, 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).

20 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 Phillips ex rel. Estates of 23| Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1213-14 (9th Cir. 2002)). “The ‘good cause 24| 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.”

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

-2- l The Ninth Circuit has clarified that the key in determining which standard to apply 2| in assessing a motion for leave to file a document under seal is whether the documents | proposed for sealing accompany a motion that is “more than tangentially related to the 4| 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.

6 Here, defendants seek to file exhibits under seal in connection with their motion 7| for summary judgment (ECF No.105) which is unquestionably “more than tangentially | related to the merits of a case.” Therefore, the compelling reasons standard applies.

9 This court, and others within the Ninth Circuit, have recognized that the need to 10} protect medical privacy qualifies as a “compelling reason” for sealing records. See, e.g., 11] San Ramon Regional Med. Ctr., Inc. v. Principal Life Ins. Co., 2011 WL89931, at *n.1 12| (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, 14| 2010); Wilkins v. Ahern, 2010 WL3755654 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 24, 2010), Lombardi v. | TriWest Healthcare Alliance Corp., 2009 WL 1212170, at * 1 (D.Ariz. May 4, 2009). This 16| is because a person's medical records contain sensitive and private information about 17| 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 | 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 22| plaintiffs interest in keeping his sensitive health information confidential outweighs the | public’s need for direct access to the medical records.

24 Here, the referenced exhibits contain plaintiffs sensitive health information, | 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 plaintiff's medical records weighs in favor of sealing these 2| exhibits. Therefore, defendants’ motion to seal (ECF No. 106) is GRANTED.

3 IT IS SO ORDERED. _ 4 DATED: August 26, 2020. A ‘ a lei = ‘ NITED STA E > MAGISTRATE JDGE 4 — 1] -4-