J.M. v. Tulare City School District ( 2023 )

1 Daniel R. Shaw, Esq. (SBN 281387) daniel@snydershaw.com 2 Collen Snyder, Esq. (SBN 274064) colleen@snydershaw.om 3 Snyder & Shaw LLP 3196 S. Higuera St. Suite E 4 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Phone: (805) 439-4646 5 Facsimile: (805) 301-8030 6 Attorneys for Plaintiff J.M. 7 James D. Weakley, Esq. (SBN 082853) jim@walaw-fresno.com 8 Matthew P. Bunting. Esq. (SBN 306034) matthew@walaw-fresno.com 9 Weakley & Arendt PC 5200 N. Palm Avenue, Suite 211 10 Fresno, CA 93704 Phone: (559) 221-5262 11 Facsimile: (559) 221-5262 12 Attorneys for Defendant, Tulare City School District 13 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 15 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 16 17 J.M., a minor, by and through his guardian Case No. 1:21-CV-01766-JLT-EPG 18 ad litem Farrah McWilliams, 19 Plaintiffs, [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING JOINT REQUEST TO SEAL ADMINSTRATIVE 20 v. RECORD 21 TULARE CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT. 22 Defendants. 23 This matter arises under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”). The 24 student, Plaintiff J.M., is currently six years old and has been diagnosed with autism. Plaintiff is 25 seeking judicial review pursuant to 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(2)(A) of certain portions of the final 26 administrative decision by the California Office of Administrative Hearings (“OAH”) in the 27 underlying due process hearing. 28 1 On January 30, 2023, the previously assigned district judge granted a joint request to seal 2 the administrative record in this case. (Doc. 31.) However, a review of the administrative record 3 revealed that there was testimony missing from two witnesses. On March 21, 2023, the Court 4 granted the parties’ Stipulation to Modify Schedule Order. (Doc. 40.) The OAH has now 5 provided a transcribed copy of the missing witness examinations. 6 The due process hearing was held over the course of eleven days in July and August of 7 2021. Nearly all, if not all, of the documents in the administrative record are educational records 8 which contain the minor child’s name and other personally identifying information. These 9 documents further contain highly sensitive and private information about the minor child’s 10 health, disabilities, intellectual functioning, and adaptive functioning. These documents include 11 multiple psychological assessments, speech and language assessments, occupational therapy 12 assessments, and behavioral assessments of the child. 13 Generally, documents filed in civil cases are to be available to the public. EEOC v. 14 Erection Co., 900 F.2d 168, 170 (9th Cir. 1990); see also Kamakana v. City and County of 15 Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006); Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 16 1122, 1134 (9th Cir. 2003). The Court may seal documents only when the compelling reasons for 17 doing so outweigh the public’s right of access. EEOC, 900 F.2d at 170. In evaluating the request, 18 the Court considers the public interest in understanding the judicial process and whether 19 disclosure of the material could result in improper use of the material for scandalous or libelous 20 purposes or infringement upon trade secrets. Valley Broad. Co. v. U.S. District Court, 798 F.2d 21 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1986). 22 The parties have jointly requested the sealing of the administrative record. This Court 23 finds that compelling reasons exist to seal the administrative record because it consists of private 24 and sensitive educational and medical records of a child, which are protected from public 25 disclosure under the IDEA, the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, and California 26 Education Code § 49076. The record has this information listed throughout making redaction 27 impractical. Thus, the Court finds a compelling need for the information contained in the record 28 to remain private. See J.M. v. Oakland Unified Sch. Dist., No. 17-CV-04986-HSG, 2018 WL eee ee OI OE IRI RE 1 6574190, at *8 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 13, 2018) (sealing entire administrative record in IDEA case 2 || because entire administrative record because it consisted of “private and sensitive educational 3 || and medical records”), aff'd, 804 F. App’x 501 (9th Cir. 2020). Accordingly, the parties’ joint A || motion to seal the administrative record is GRANTED. ! 5 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 8 Dated: _ June 30, 2023 : TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 || ' Counsel are advised that this order does not preclude the Court from issuing orders on the public docket which discusses information contained in the sealed administrative record. The Court may issue orders under seal temporarily and give the parties an opportunity to recommend redactions for the public version of the order. In this 28 event, failing to recommend redactions may result in the Court docketing the full order, which would open the confidential information public review.