United States District Court, D. Nevada
AARON K. DANIELS, Plaintiff,
DR. DAVID MAR, Defendant.
ORDER RE: ECF NO. 34
WILLIAM G. COBB, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
the court is defendant Dr. David Mar's Motion for Leave
to File Confidential Documents Under Seal in Support of
Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 34.) No
response was filed. In this motion, Dr. Mar seek to file
under seal an exhibit containing Plaintiff's medical
records. The exhibit is filed in connection with a motion for
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 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 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 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 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting Brown &
Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. F.T.C., 710 F.2d 1165, 1177
(6th Cir. 1983)).
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.” Id. (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
justice.'” Center for Auto Safety v. Chrysler
Group, LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2016),
cert. denied, 137 S.Ct. 38 (Oct. 3, 2016) (quoting
United States v. Amodeo (Amodeo II), 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)).
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 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.” Id. (quoting
Kamakana, 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.” Id.
“What constitutes a ‘compelling reason' is
‘best left to the sound discretion of the trial
court.'” Id. (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.'” Id. (quoting
Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598-99).
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.”
Id. (citing Phillips ex rel. Estates of 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.”
Id. (citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c)).
Ninth Circuit has clarified that the key in determining which
standard to apply 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 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.
Dr. Mar seeks to file an exhibit under seal in connection
with his motion for summary judgment which is unquestionably
“more than tangentially related to the merits of a
case.” Therefore, the compelling reasons standard
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,
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. 15, 2010); G. v.
Hawaii, 2010 WL 267483, at *1-2 (D.HI. June 25, 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 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 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.
the referenced exhibit contains Plaintiffs sensitive health
information, medical history, and treatment records, and
includes such information that is both related and unrelated
to the claim at issue in this lawsuit. Balancing the need for
the public's access to information regarding Plaintiffs
medical history, treatment, and condition against the need to
maintain the confidentiality of Plaintiffs medical records
weighs in favor of sealing this exhibit. Therefore, Dr.
Mar's motion (ECF No. 34) is