(PC) Harris v. Kyle ( 2019 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DEVONTE B. HARRIS, Case No. 1:19-cv-00462-EPG (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 13 TO SEAL 14 v. (ECF NO. 8) 15 K. KYLE, et al., 16 Defendants. 17 18 Plaintiff, Devonte B. Harris, is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 19 in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Before the Court is Plaintiff’s request to 20 seal documents. (ECF No. 8.) Plaintiff moves to seal all documents related to this case, 21 including the complaint, because this action relates to Plaintiff’s mental health and the mental 22 health treatment Plaintiff received or did not receive. The Court will deny the motion. 23 LEGAL STANDARD 24 All documents filed with the court are presumptively public. Kamakana v. City & Cty. 25 of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (“Historically, courts have recognized a 26 ‘general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and 27 documents.’”) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)); San 28 Jose Mercury News, Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Court, 187 F.3d 1096, 1103 (9th Cir. 1999) (“It is well- 1 established that the fruits of pretrial discovery are, in the absence of a court order to the 2 contrary, presumptively public.”). The party seeking to seal a particular judicial record has the 3 burden of overcoming the presumption of public access. Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178. To meet 4 this burden, the party must articulate “compelling reasons” that outweigh “the general history 5 of access” to court records and “public policies favoring disclosure.” Id. 1178-79 (citations 6 omitted). 7 The Court must “conscientiously balance” the “competing interests” of the public and 8 the party seeking to seal the judicial record. Id. at 1179. The determination as to what 9 constitutes a “compelling reason” is within the Court’s “sound discretion.” Center for Auto 10 Safety v. Chrysler Group, LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1097 (9th Cir. 2016). Examples of compelling 11 reasons include where a record might “become a vehicle for improper purposes,” such as to 12 “gratify private spite, promote public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade 13 secrets.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179. 14 Here, Plaintiff’s seeks to seal the entire court record. In support of his request, Plaintiff 15 cites to the confidentiality and privacy generally provided for mental health records. Plaintiff 16 contends that, because this action relates to his mental health and mental health treatment, the 17 entire court record should be sealed to preserve his general right to privacy and confidentiality. 18 (ECF No. 8.) 19 Although privacy of mental health information is important, a general appeal to the 20 private nature of the case does not, without more, justify sealing it. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 21 1179. This is because even embarrassing information and documents are not exempt from the 22 public’s right to access. See id. (“The mere fact that the production of records may lead to a 23 litigant’s embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will not, without more, 24 compel the court to seal its records.”) (citing Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 25 1122, 1136 (9th Cir. 2003)). Indeed, because the purpose of sealing documents is to hide them 26 from public view, some interest in privacy or confidentiality is at the heart of nearly every 27 request to seal documents. 28 Here, because of the “strong presumption in favor of access to court records,” Center 1 for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1096, and because Plaintiff has not articulated any specific reason, 2 other than the general subject matter of the action—his mental health—for why the entire court 3 record and his complaint should be sealed, Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178, Plaintiff’s motion to 4 seal the entire record, including his complaint, will be denied. 5 The Court notes, however, that this ruling does not foreclose Plaintiff from requesting, 6 in the future, that certain documents be filed under seal. In making such requests, Plaintiff must 7 comply with all applicable Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules, including 8 Local Rules 140 and 141. The Court’s ruling also does not foreclose Plaintiff from seeking a 9 protective order in relation to such documents, as provided for under Local Rule 141.1 and 10 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). The Court also provides Plaintiff with the following 11 additional guidance. 12 Two standards generally govern requests to seal. Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 13 F.3d 665, 677 (9th Cir. 2010). “[J]udicial records attached to dispositive motions [are treated] 14 differently from records attached to non-dispositive motions. Those who seek to maintain the 15 secrecy of documents attached to dispositive motions must meet the high threshold of showing 16 that ‘compelling reasons’ support secrecy.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1180 (citations omitted). In 17 contrast, a “‘good cause’ showing under Rule 26(c) will suffice to keep sealed records attached 18 to non-dispositive motions.” Id. The reason for the two different standards is that 19 “[n]ondispositive motions are often unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying 20 cause of action, and, as a result, the public’s interest in accessing dispositive materials does not 21 apply with equal force to non-dispositive materials.” Pintos, 605 F.3d at 678 (quotations 22 omitted). 23 Under the “compelling reasons” standard applicable to dispositive motions: 24 [T]he court must conscientiously balance the competing interests of the public and the party who seeks to keep certain judicial 25 records secret. After considering these interests, if the court decides to seal certain judicial records, it must base its decision 26 on a compelling reason and articulate the factual basis for its ruling, without relying on hypothesis or conjecture. 27 28 Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178-79 (internal quotation marks, omissions, and citations omitted). 1 || The party seeking to seal a judicial record bears the burden of meeting the “compelling 2 ||reasons” standard. Jd. at 1178; Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 3 || (9th Cir. 2003). 4 While the terms “dispositive” and “non-dispositive” motions are often used in this 5 || context, the Ninth Circuit has clarified that the “compelling reasons” standard applies whenever 6 || the motion at issue “is more than tangentially related to the merits of a case.” Ctr. for Auto 7 || Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1101 (9th Cir. 2016). In some instances, the 8 || proposed filing of documents under seal in connection with motions for preliminary injunction, 9 || for sanctions, or in limine—though such motions are not dispositive—may be governed by the 10 || “compelling reasons” test, predicated on the right of access and the need to “provide the public 11 || with a more complete understanding of the judicial system and a better perception of its 12 || fairness.” Id. at 1097-1101 (quoting Leucadia, Inc. v. Applied Extrusion Techs., Inc., 998 F.2d 13 || 157, 161 Gd Cir. 1993)). 14 For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Seal (ECF No. 8) 15 DENIED. 16 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 ll Dated: _ September 23, 2019 [sf ey 19 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28