Shears v. United States of America ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 H.S., a minor, by and through his mother Case No.: 3:17-cv-02418-BTM-KSC and natural guardian, SAMANTHA 12 PARDE, ORDER SEALING PETITION FOR 13 APPROVAL OF A MINOR’S Plaintiff, COMPROMISE AND RELATED 14 v. EXHIBITS 15 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, and [Doc. No. 80] 16 DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, 17 Defendants. 18 19 20 Before the Court is plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion for a Court Order Sealing the 21 Record for a Minor’s Compromise. Doc. No. 80. The Court will construe this as a 22 Motion to Seal the documents conditionally lodged under seal at Docket Number 82, 23 which consist of the parties’ Joint Petition and Stipulation for Approval of Minor’s 24 Compromise and Release of Claims and supporting exhibits (collectively, the “lodged 25 documents”). Having reviewed the documents, and for the following reasons, the Court 26 GRANTS the Motion to Seal. 27 The Ninth Circuit recognizes the public’s “‘general right to inspect and copy 28 public records and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. 1 || City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir.2006) (citations omitted). 2 || However, the “strong presumption” of public access can be overcome where a litigant’s 3 || competing privacy interests create “compelling reasons” to keep information from public 4 || view. Id. at 1178-79. 5 Here, the lodged documents are replete with sensitive information that plaintiff is 6 || entitled to keep private. The lodged documents describe in detail plaintiffs injuries, past 7 medical treatment and expected future care. Such personal and family matters tip the 8 || balance in favor of sealing. See Covert v. City of San Diego, No. 15-CV-2097-AJB 9 ||(WVG), 2016 WL 7117364, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 6, 2016). The lodged documents also 10 || specify the amount of the settlement and other “personal financial information” of the 11 that is “universally presumed to be private, not public.” Sec. Exch. Comm’n v. Total 12 || Wealth Mgmt., Inc., No. 15-cv-0226-BAS-DHB, 2017 WL 426839, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 13 2017) (collecting cases) (citations omitted). The Court further finds that there is 14 || enough identifying information in the lodged documents that simply using plaintiff’ 15 ||initials will not adequately protect his privacy. See McMillan v. Chaker, No. 16cv2186- 16 || WQH-MDD, 2017 WL 4417686, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 2, 2017) (sealing documents 17 || where identifying information “could become a vehicle for improper purposes”). Thus, 18 || the Court finds that plaintiffs privacy interest outweighs the public’s right to access and 19 inspect the lodged documents. 20 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the Motion to Seal. The Clerk of Court is 21 || directed to file the documents lodged at Docket Number 82 under seal in their entirety.! 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 ||Dated: October 23, 2020 diy 7 > 24 fi fi SS 25 How. Karen S. Crawford United States Magistrate Judge 26 27 3g ||‘ The Court finds plaintiff’s request to seal “any Order of Approval” regarding the minor’s compromise is premature, but will assess the need to seal its Order at the appropriate time. Doc. No. 80 at 3.