Sanders v. Castaneda

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 * * * Timothy Sanders, Case No. 2:22-cv-01373-APG-EJY 5 Plaintiff, 6 v. ORDER Castaneda, et al., 8 Defendants.

10 Pending before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Seal. ECF No. 67. The Motion seeks permission to file Plaintiff’s medical records and Defendant Costello’s work records under seal.

12 Federal courts recognize a general right to public inspection of judicial records and documents. Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal citation omitted). The strong presumption of public access must be overcome by a party seeking to seal a judicial record. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2016) (citing Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178). This is a stringent standard, and a party must demonstrate “‘a compelling reason and [articulate] a factual basis . . . without relying on hypothesis or conjecture” to justify sealing court filed documents. Id. 1096-97. The “compelling reason” standard applies to dispositive motions. Id. at 1100-01.

20 Medical privacy meets the compelling reason standard established in Kamakana. See, e.g., San Ramon Regional Med. Ctr., Inc. v. Principal Life Ins. Co., 2011 WL89931, at *n. 1 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 10, 2011); Abbey v. Hawaii Employers Mut. Ins. Co., 2010 WL4715793, at *1-2 (D.HI. Nov.

23 15, 2010); G. v. Hawaii, 2010 WL 267483, at *1-2 (D. Haw. June 25, 2010); Wilkins v. Ahern, 2010 WL3755654 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 24, 2010); Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 25 1122, 1136 (9th Cir. 2003). The Court further finds Defendant Costello’s work records are of a sufficiently compelling and private nature that public disclosure is not warranted.

27 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Seal (ECF No. 67) 1 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that ECF No. 68 is and shall remain sealed.

2 DATED this 21st day of April, 2025.

ELAYNA J. YOUCHAH 5 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE