(PC) Hammler v. Lyons ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ALLEN HAMMLER, 1:19-cv-01650-AWI-GSA-PC 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT LUCAS’S REQUEST TO SEAL 13 vs. DOCUMENTS 14 J. LYONS, et al., ORDER FOR CLERK TO SEAL DOCUMENTS: 15 Defendants. (1) Defendant’s Reply to Plaintiff’s 16 Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Terminating and Monetary 17 Sanctions; 18 (2) Dr. E. Greene’s Declaration; and 19 (3) Deputy Attorney General Thai’s Declaration and the accompanying 20 Exhibit 4 in support of the Reply 21 I. BACKGROUND 22 Allen Hammler (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 23 with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case now proceeds with Plaintiff’s 24 First Amended Complaint filed on April 3, 2019, against defendant A. Lucas (Appeals 25 Coordinator) (“Defendant”) for violation of freedom of speech under the First Amendment.1 26 (ECF No. 12.) 27 28 1 On July 27, 2021, the court dismissed all other claims from this case based on Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim. (ECF No. 36.) 1 On June 10, 2022, Defendant filed a Reply to Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant’s 2 Motion for Terminating and Monetary Sanctions, together with the Declaration of Dr. Greene 3 and the Declaration of Quyen V. Thai with Exhibits 4-8. (ECF Nos. 70, 70-1, & 70-2.) Also on 4 June 10, 2022, Defendant filed a Notice of Request to Seal Documents. (ECF No. 71.) Defendant 5 also emailed chambers an in camera Request to Seal the following pages of documents identified 6 in the public Notice of Request to Seal: (1) Defendant’s Reply to Plaintiff’s Opposition to 7 Defendant’s Motion for Terminating and Monetary Sanctions; (2) Dr. E. Greene’s Declaration; 8 and, (3) Deputy Attorney General Thai’s Declaration and the accompanying Exhibit 4 in support 9 of the Reply.2 10 II. SEALING DOCUMENTS 11 Federal courts have recognized a strong presumption that judicial records are accessible 12 to the public. Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). 13 “Unless a particular court record is one ‘traditionally kept secret,’ a ‘strong presumption in favor 14 of access’ is the starting point.” Id. (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 15 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003). Generally, if a party seeks to seal a document attached to a 16 dispositive motion, the party bears the burden of overcoming this presumption by articulating 17 “compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings” to justify sealing the records at issue. 18 Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178. 19 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2(d), a court “may order that a filing be 20 made under seal without redaction,” and the Supreme Court has acknowledged that the decision 21 to seal documents is “one best left to the sound discretion of the trial court, a discretion to be 22 exercised in light of the relevant facts and circumstances of the particular case,” Nixon v. Warner 23 Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 599, 98 S.Ct. 1306, 1312 (1978). Courts should consider 24 “the interests [of] the parties in light of the public interest and the duty of the courts.” Hagestad 25 v. Tragesser, 49 F.3d 1430, 1434 (9th Cir. 1995) (quoting Nixon, 435 U.S. at 602). 26 27 28 2 Defendant asserts that due to time constraints and filing deadline, Defendant concurrently files these documents publicly. Defendant requests that the Court seals the documents upon granting the request. 1 “Under the ‘compelling reasons’ standard, a district court must weigh ‘relevant factors,’ 2 base its decision ‘on a compelling reason,’ and ‘articulate the factual basis for its ruling, without 3 relying on hypothesis or conjecture.’” Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass'n, 605 F.3d 665, 679 (9th 4 Cir. 2010) (quoting Hagestad, 49 F.3d at 1434). In general, when “‘court files might have 5 become a vehicle for improper purposes’ such as the use of records to gratify private spite, 6 promote public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets,” there are 7 “compelling reasons” sufficient to outweigh the public’s interest in disclosure. Kamekana, 447 8 F.3d at 1179 (internal citations and alterations omitted). However, “[t]he mere fact that the 9 production of records may lead to a litigant’s embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to 10 further litigation will not, without more, compel the court to seal its records.” Id. (citing Foltz , 11 331 F.3d at 1136. 12 III. DEFENDANT’S REQUEST TO SEAL DOCUMENTS 13 Defendant requests the Court to seal certain documents in this case in an abundance of 14 caution on the ground that the documents contain information regarding Plaintiff’s mental health 15 treatment. Defendant requests that the Court maintain the documents filed under seal until the 16 conclusion of this case and any appellate proceedings, after which time the Clerk shall return the 17 documents or destroy the copies. 18 The court recognizes that the need to protect medical privacy has qualified as a 19 “compelling reason,” for sealing records in connection with a dispositive motion. See, e.g., San 20 Ramon Reg’l Med. Ctr., Inc. v. Principal Life Ins. Co., No. C 10–02258 SBA, 2011 WL 89931, 21 at *1 n. 1 (N.D.Cal. Jan.10, 2011); Abbey v. Hawaii Emp’r Mut. Ins. Co., Civil No. 09–000545 22 SOM/BMK, 2010 WL 4715793, at * 1–2 (D.Haw. Nov.15, 2010); Wilkins v. Ahern, No. C 08– 23 1084 MMC (PR), 2010 WL 3755654, at *4 (N.D.Cal. Sept.24, 2010); Lombardi v. Tri West 24 Healthcare Alliance Corp., 2009 WL 1212170, at *1 (D.Ariz. May 4, 2009); Battle v. Martinez, 25 2:16-cv-0411-TLN-CKD, 2017 WL 445736 at *3 (E.D.Cal. Feb. 2, 2017). 26 The Court has considered Defendant’s Request and the documents at issue. The Court 27 finds that the information sought to be sealed implicates legitimate confidentiality concerns as 28 well as potentially safety and security concerns, therefore they should be protected from 1 disclosure to the public. Accordingly, the Court shall grant Defendant’s request in part. Because 2 Defendant filed the documents publicly, the Clerk shall be instructed to change the public filing 3 and seal the following: (1) Defendant’s Reply to Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant’s Motion 4 for Terminating and Monetary Sanctions; (2) Dr. E. Greene’s Declaration; and (3) Deputy 5 Attorney General Thai’s Declaration and the accompanying Exhibit 4 in support of the Reply. 6 However, Defendant’s request for the Court to return the documents to counsel or discard them 7 at the conclusion of this case shall be denied. The documents shall be maintained under seal on 8 the Court’s electronic document filing system. 9 IV. CONCLUSION 10 Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 11 1. Defendant’s request to seal documents, submitted on June 10, 2022, for in camera 12 review, is GRANTED; and 13 2. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to change the public filing, and seal the 14 following documents: 15 (1) Defendant’s Reply to Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for 16 Terminating and Monetary Sanctions (ECF No. 70); 17 (2) Dr. E. Greene’s Declaration (ECF No. 70-1); and 18 (3) Deputy Attorney General Thai’s Declaration and the accompanying Exhibit 4 19 in support of the Reply (ECF No. 70-2 pp. 1-20); 20 3. The foregoing material shall be maintained under seal on the Court’s electronic 21 document filing system. 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 24 Dated: June 13, 2022 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 25 26 27 28