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-AWI-EPG 18 ad litem Farrah McWilliams, 19 Plaintiffs, 20 v. [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING JOINT 21 TULARE CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT. REQUEST TO SEAL ADMINSTRATIVE RECORD 22 Defendants. 23 24 This matter arises under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”). The 25 student, Plaintiff J.M., is currently six years old and has been diagnosed with autism. Plaintiff is 26 seeking judicial review pursuant to 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(2)(A) of certain portions of the final 27 administrative decision by the California Office of Administrative Hearings (“OAH”) in the 28 underlying due process hearing. 1 The due process hearing was held over the course of eleven days in July and August of 2 2021. The administrative record is voluminous, containing more than 4,000 pages. Nearly all, if 3 not all, of the documents in the administrative record are educational records which contain the 4 minor child’s name and other personally identifying information. These documents further 5 contain highly sensitive and private information about the minor child’s health, disabilities, 6 intellectual functioning, and adaptive functioning. These documents include multiple 7 psychological assessments, speech and language assessments, occupational therapy assessments, 8 and behavioral assessments of the child. 9 The request to seal documents is controlled by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). 10 The Rule permits the Court to issue orders to “protect a party or person from annoyance, 11 embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense, including . . . requiring that a trade 12 secret or other confidential research, development, or commercial information not be revealed or 13 be revealed only in a specified way.” Only if good cause exists may the Court seal the 14 information from public view after balancing “the needs for discovery against the need for 15 confidentiality.’” Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. Cal. 2010) 16 (quoting Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1213 (9th Cir. 17 2002)). 18 Generally, documents filed in civil cases are to be available to the public. EEOC v. 19 Erection Co., 900 F.2d 168, 170 (9th Cir. 1990); see also Kamakana v. City and Cty of Honolulu, 20 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir.2006); Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 21 1134 (9th Cir.2003). The Court may seal documents only when the compelling reasons for 22 doing so outweigh the public’s right of access. EEOC, 900 F.2d at 170. In evaluating the 23 request, the Court considers the “public interest in understanding the judicial process and 24 whether disclosure of the material could result in improper use of the material for scandalous or 25 libelous purposes or infringement upon trade secrets.” Valley Broadcasting Co. v. United States 26 Dist. Ct., 798 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1986). 27 The parties have jointly requested the sealing of the administrative record. This Court 28 finds that compelling reasons exist to seal the administrative record because it consists of private eee I III IIE IIR OS IEE OSE IEE IED EEO 1 and sensitive educational and medical records of a child, which are protected from public 2 || disclosure by statute. The record has this information listed throughout making redaction 3 || impractical. Thus, the Court finds a compelling need for the information contained in the record 4 || to remain private. 5 Accordingly, the parties’ joint motion to seal the administrative record is GRANTED. 6 || ITIS SO ORDERED.! 7 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 fp) Dated: _ January 30, 2023 : 10 _-SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE 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.