1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 Sarita Lundin, 4 2:24-cv-00411-JAD-MDC Plaintiff(s), 5 vs. Order granting plaintiff’s motion to seal (ECF 6 Fertility Center of Las Vegas - Shapiro, MD, No. 4) PLLC, 7 Defendant(s). 8 Plaintiff filed a redacted complaint, a sealed version of the complaint, and a motion to seal. ECF 9 Nos. 1, 3, and 4. The Court notes, however, that the defendant made its appearance in this case after the 10 deadline to respond to the motion to seal had passed. ECF No. 11. The Court reviews the motion to seal 11 on the merits and grants the motion. ECF No. 4. The defendant will not be prejudiced here because it 12 may object to this order. See LR IB 3-1. 13 I. Background 14 Plaintiff alleges in her complaint that the defendant medical provider used tracking technology 15 on its website to collect and divulge plaintiff’s (and putative class members’) protected health 16 information to third parties. ECF No. 1. Plaintiff argues in her motion to seal that she is only moving to 17 redact her protected health information from her complaint. ECF No. 4. 18 II. Analysis 19 The Ninth Circuit has held that there is a strong presumption of public access to judicial records. 20 See Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu,

, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006); Foltz v. State Farm 21 Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.,

(9th Cir. 2003). As the moving party, plaintiff bears the burden 22 to overcome this strong presumption of public access. Foltz,

. The burden that plaintiff 23 must overcome depends on the information plaintiff is seeking to be sealed and its relation to the case’s 24 merits. Kamakana,

; Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC,

, 1096-97 25 1 || (Oth Cir. 2016). Records attached to “nondispositive motions” require only "good cause", while 2 || "dispositive motions" require the more stringent "compelling reasons" standard. /d. Courts within the 3 || Ninth Circuit have acknowledged that “[t]he need to protect medical privacy qualifies as a ‘compelling 4 || reason." Williams v. Minev, No. 3:22-cv-00293-RCJ-CSD,

, at *1 (D. 5 || Nev. Nov. 1, 2023) (collecting cases in the Ninth Circuit). 6 Plaintiff is moving to redact what she believes is her protected health information in the 7 || complaint that is available to the public on the docket. ECF No. 1. The Court has reviewed both the 8 sealed and the unsealed versions of the complaint on the docket. ECF Nos. 1 and 3. Plaintiff's redacted 9 || portions of the complaint are minimal. For example, while her complaint is on the lengthy side at 10 || seventy-eight pages, she only redacted a few lines on a few pages that pertained to her medical condition 11 || and circumstances. E.g., see ECF No. 1 at 10 and 55. Given that the redactions are not overly broad and 12 || appear to only pertain to her medical condition, the Court finds that plaintiff has provided a compelling 13 || reason for redacting this limited medical information from the complaint. 14 It is so ordered that the plaintiff's motion to seal (ECF No. 4) is granted. 15 Dated this 28th day of March 2024. 4 a 16 fi hj ‘\ 7 7 iPXimiliano / Couyil & Ti United States fin Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25