Hazari v. Superior Court of Santa Clara County ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 CYRUS HAZARI, Case No. 21-cv-04262-JSW 8 Plaintiff, ORDER REGARDING REQUEST FOR AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY 9 v. PLAINTIFF’S MEDICAL DOCUMENTS SHOULD BE 10 SUPERIOR COURT OF SANTA CLARA MAINTAINED UNDER SEAL RE: COUNTY ET AL, et al., Dkt. No. 37 11 Defendants. 12 13 On August 25, 2021, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request to file medical records under 14 seal, and on September 8, 2021, it granted another motion to file medical records under seal, 15 granted a motion to stay this matter, and denied Defendant Mandy Brady’s pending motion to 16 dismiss without prejudice. In the latter order, the Court stated it would not preclude Ms. Brady 17 from seeking leave to lift the stay, if she could show good cause for doing so. Ms. Brady now 18 asks the Court to require Plaintiff to show cause why his medical records should remain under 19 seal. She argues she should be able to review them, to determine if good cause exists to lift the 20 stay. 21 Implicit in Ms. Brady’s request is the assertion that Plaintiff did not serve her with a copy 22 of the documents he asked the Court to seal, as is generally required under both the Federal Rules 23 of Civil Procedure and this Court’s Civil Local Rules. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(a); N.D. Civ. L.R. 5- 24 5, 7-11(a), and 79-5(d)(1) (administrative motions to seal shall be filed in conformance with Local 25 Rule 7-11). Although Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, he is expected to follow the rules of 26 procedure. See, e.g., King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987), overruled on other 27 grounds Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896, 928 (9th Cir. 2012); see also Ghazali v. Moran, ] litigants are bound by the rules of procedure.”). 2 The Court ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause, in writing, by no later than October 12, 2021, 3 || why he should not be required to serve his motions to seal and the accompanying documents on 4 || Ms. Brady. 5 Although the Court will require Plaintiff to show cause why those documents should not 6 || be served on Ms. Brady, the Court denies Ms. Brady’s request to require Plaintiff to show cause 7 || why the documents should be maintained under seal. The Court will revisit that decision when it 8 is called upon to consider the merits of Plaintiffs claims. See, e.g. Lawrence v. City & County of 9 || San Francisco, No. 14-cv-802-MEJ, 2015 WL 1093081, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 10, 2015) (noting 10 || that “privacy rights in medical records are neither fundamental nor absolute” and “[w]hen a 11 plaintiff places his medical status at issue, the expectation to privacy to those conditions is 12 || diminished”) (internal citations and quotations omitted). The Court will also revisit Ms. Brady’s E || request to require Plaintiff to post security, contained in an exhibit to her request for an order to 14 || show cause, at the time it determines the stay should be lifted. 3 15 IT ISSO ORDERED. ~h A 16 || Dated: September 27, 2021 / | / ) Li ike JEBFREY $. WHI Z 18 /Oniited ip Disyfct Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28