Castro v. LaRose ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 GUSTAVO GARRIDO CASTRO, Case No.: 3:20-cv-00764-BEN-JLB 10 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 11 v. FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL 12 CHRISTOPHER J. LAROSE, in his capacity as Senior Warden, Otay Mesa 13 [ECF No. 4] Detention Center; GREGORY J. 14 ARCHAMBEAULT, in his official capacity as San Diego Field Office 15 Director, U.S. Immigrations and Customs 16 Enforcement; CHAD F. WOLF, in his official capacity as Acting Secretary, 17 Department of Homeland Security; and 18 WILLIAM P. BARR, in his official capacity as U.S. Attorney General, 19 Respondents. 20 21 Petitioner Gustavo Garrido Castro filed a Petition for Writ Habeas Corpus pursuant 22 to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. ECF No. 1. Respondents submitted a Motion to File Documents 23 Under Seal concurrently with their Return to the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. For 24 the following reasons, the motion is granted. 25 Except for certain documents “traditionally kept secret,” federal courts begin a 26 sealing analysis with “a strong presumption in favor of access to court records.” Foltz v. 27 State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003). A party seeking to 28 seal a judicial record then must “articulate [] compelling reasons supported by specific 1 || factual findings,” id., that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies 2 favoring disclosure, such as the “public interest in understanding the judicial process,” 3 || Hagestad v. Tragesser, 49 F.3d 1430, 1434 (9th Cir. 1995). The Court “conscientiously 4 ||balance[s] . . . the competing interests” of the public and the party who seeks to keep 5 || certain judicial records secret. Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1135. After considering these interests, 6 ||if the Court decides to seal certain judicial records, it “base[s] its decision on a 7 compelling reason and articulate[s] the factual basis for its ruling, without relying on 8 hypothesis or conjecture.” Hagestad, 49 F.3d at 1434 (citing Valley Broadcasting Co. v. 9 || U.S. Dist. Ct., 798 F.2d 1289, 1295 (9th Cir.1986)). 10 Respondents express a need to disclose Petitioner’s medical records to the Court as 11 ||evidence supporting their Return to the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. They bring 12 || this motion to file those records under seal out of concern for Petitioner’s privacy. The 13 || Court is mindful that protection of medical privacy has often been found to be a 14 ||““compelling reason” for sealing records. See Domingo v. Brennan, 690 Fed. App’x 928, 15 || 930-31 (9th Cir. 2017) and Heldt v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., Case No. 16-cv-885- 16 || BAS-NLS, 2018 WL 5920029, at *2 (Nov. 13, 2018) (citing others). On balance, the 17 || potential harm to Petitioner’s interests outweighs the public interest here. Accordingly, 18 || the Court exercises its discretion to grant the motion. See Nixon v. Warner 19 || Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 599 (1978) ("The few cases that have recognized 20 || such a right do agree that the decision as to access is one best left to the sound discretion 21 || of the trial court, a discretion to be exercised in light of the relevant facts and 22 circumstances of the particular case"). 23 The motion to seal is GRANTED. The Clerk is directed to file the unredacted 24 || version of the documents lodged at Docket Number 5-1 under seal. 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 97 || DATED: October 30, 2020 ON. ROGER T. BENITE 28 United States District Judge