(PC) Mora v. Petras ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RUBEN EDWARD MORA, Case No. 2:20-cv-00749-KJM-JDP (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SEAL DOCUMENTS 13 v. ECF No. 39 14 O. PETRAS, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS 15 Defendant. TO APPOINT COUNSEL 16 ECF Nos. 46 & 47 17 18 The public generally has a right to inspect court records. See Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, 19 Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978); Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 20 (9th Cir. 2006). Defendant asks to shield from public view 515 pages of records submitted with 21 his motion for summary judgment. But defendant has not made the showing required to justify 22 such sealing. 23 There is a strong presumption in favor of public access to court records, and the party 24 seeking to seal a record bears the burden of overcoming that presumption. See Kamakana, 447 25 F.3d at 1178. Records attached to non-dispositive motions must meet the lower “good cause” 26 standard of Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as such records “are often 27 unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action.” Id., 447 F.3d at 1179- 28 1 80 (quotations omitted). For dispositive motions, the party must “articulate compelling reasons 2 supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the general history of access and the public 3 policies favoring disclosure, such as the public interest in understanding the judicial process.” Id. 4 at 1178-79 (citation omitted). “In general, ‘compelling reasons’ sufficient to . . . justify sealing 5 court records exist when such ‘court files might . . . become a vehicle for improper purposes,’ 6 such as the use of records to gratify private spite, promote public scandal, circulate libelous 7 statements, or release trade secrets.” Id., 447 F.3d at 1179 (quoting Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598). 8 “The mere fact that the production of records may lead to a litigant’s embarrassment, 9 incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will not, without more, compel the court to seal its 10 records.” Id. 11 Defendant seeks to seal exhibits B, C, and D to the declaration of Deputy Attorney 12 General Norman D. Morrison IV, which he has submitted in support of his pending motion for 13 summary judgment. ECF No. 39. Exhibits B and D contain plaintiff’s medical records, from 14 both the California Medical Facility and private healthcare providers, and exhibit C consists of 15 plaintiff’s prison grievances and responses. Id. Defendant has not demonstrated that these 16 documents should be shielded from public view. 17 As a threshold matter, defendant argues that a motion for summary judgment is not 18 dispositive and that he must show only good cause for sealing documents. ECF No. 39-1 at 2. 19 This argument is perplexing; a summary judgment motion is dispositive, and defendant must 20 advance compelling reasons for sealing records submitted with such a motion. See Kamakana, 21 447 F.3d at 1179 (concluding that a “strong presumption of access to judicial records applies fully 22 to dispositive pleadings, including motions for summary judgment and related attachments”). 23 It is also not apparent from reviewing the documents that they merit sealing. While it may 24 be appropriate in certain circumstances to seal medical records, such records are regularly filed on 25 the public docket in cases that, like this one, involve claims of medical deliberate indifference. 26 Defendant’s conclusory statement that publication of plaintiff’s records will interfere with 27 plaintiff’s right to privacy and medical care does not justify a departure from that practice. See 28 Chester v. King, No. 1:16-cv-01257-DAD-GSA (PC), 2019 WL 5420213, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 1 23, 2019) (denying a motion to seal an exhibit in support of a motion for summary judgment that 2 includes “health information, medical history, and treatment records pertaining to Plaintiff’s 3 Hepatitis C diagnosis, which are at issue in this case”). Notably, defendant’s motion for summary 4 judgment, which he filed on the public docket, discusses the information contained in the 5 documents that he seeks to seal. Defendant’s request to seal is denied. 6 Given the potentially sensitive nature of some of the documents, the denial will be without 7 prejudice. Defendant may file a properly supported request to seal within fourteen days of this 8 order. Defendant could also consider asking plaintiff to stipulate to the documents being filed on 9 the public docket.1 10 Also pending are plaintiff’s two motions for appointment of counsel. ECF Nos. 46 & 47. 11 Plaintiff does not have a constitutional right to appointed counsel in this action, see Rand v. 12 Rowland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 1997), and the court lacks the authority to require an 13 attorney to represent plaintiff, see Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for the S. Dist. of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 14 298 (1989). The court can request the voluntary assistance of counsel. See 28 U.S.C. 15 § 1915(e)(1) (“The court may request an attorney to represent any person unable to afford 16 counsel”); Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. However, without a means to compensate counsel, the court 17 will seek volunteer counsel only in exceptional circumstances. In determining whether such 18 circumstances exist, “the district court must evaluate both the likelihood of success on the merits 19 [and] the ability of the [plaintiff] to articulate his claims pro se in light of the complexity of the 20 legal issues involved.” Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 21 Plaintiff contends that he should be appointed counsel because of increased difficulty in 22 litigating this action due to the COVID-19 pandemic and his health-related issues. ECF No. 47 at 23 1-2. I cannot conclude that the current pandemic constitutes an exceptional circumstance 24 requiring the appointment of counsel. To hold otherwise would require the court to appoint 25 1 Under Local Rule 141(e)(1), the court ordinarily returns the documents to the requesting party. Given that defendant’s motion for summary judgment rests primarily on the documents at 26 issue in his request to seal, I will defer returning the documents at this time. Defendant is warned, 27 however, that should he fail to timely renew his motion or submit a stipulation to file them on the public docket, the documents will be returned and not considered in adjudicating his motion for 28 summary judgment. 1 | counsel to all inmates, which is not feasible. Furthermore, the allegations in the complaint are not 2 || exceptionally complicated, and plaintiff has not demonstrated that he is likely to succeed on the 3 || merits. For these reasons, plaintiff's motions to appoint counsel, ECF Nos. 46 & 47, are denied 4 || without prejudice. 5 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that: 6 1. Defendant’s request to seal documents, ECF No. 39, is denied without prejudice. 7 2. Within fourteen days of the date of this order, defendant shall file either a renewed 8 | motion to seal or a stipulation to file on the public docket exhibits B, C, and D to the declaration 9 || of Deputy Attorney General Norman D. Morrison IV. 10 3. Plaintiff's motions for appointment of counsel, ECF Nos. 47 & 48, are denied without 11 | prejudice. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 ( 1 SY. — Dated: _ November 8, 2021 \E ee 15 JEREMY D. PETERSON 16 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28