Collins v. Nationwide Agribusiness Insurance Company ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOHN GARY COLLINS, Case No.: 19-cv-1392-GPC-MSB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO 13 v. FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL 14 NATIONWIDE AGRIBUSINESS [ECF Nos. 28, 38] INSURANCE COMPANY; and DOES 1 15 THROUGH 10, 16 Defendants. 17 18 Before this Court is Defendant Nationwide Agribusiness Insurance Company’s two 19 motions to file under seal certain documents in support of its motion for summary 20 judgment. ECF Nos. 28, 38. The Court DENIES both motions. 21 Courts apply a “strong presumption in favor of access” to documents filed in 22 litigation. Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1137 (9th Cir. 2003). 23 To overcome that presumption, the movant must provide “compelling reasons supported 24 by specific factual findings . . . that outweigh the general history of access and the public 25 policies favoring disclosure, such as the ‘public interest in understanding the judicial 26 27 1 || process.’” Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178-79 (9th Cir. 2 || 2006) (citations omitted). 3 Typically, medical privacy qualifies as a “compelling reason” to seal records. See, 4 lle.g., Salgado v. Iqvia, Inc., No. 18-CV-2785-BAS-WVG, 2020 WL 1322949, at *2 (S.D. 5 || Cal. Mar. 20, 2020). However, Plaintiff, by putting the medical history “at issue,” has 6 || waived the confidentiality of these records. See Warner v. Velardi, No. 16-CV-1924- 7 || BEN (DHB), 2017 WL 3387723, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 7, 2017). 8 Specifically, the July 2018 Medical Review and the October 2018 Peer Review 9 || Report—which correspond to Defendant’s Exhibits C and E—have already been 10 || produced by Plaintiff. See Pl.’s Evid. Exs. 16, 23, ECF No. 37-4. The Court cannot seal 11 || what has already been made public. See, e.g., In re Google Inc. Gmail Litig., No. 13- 12 || MD-02430-LHK, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 136420, at *31 to *34 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 6, 2014) 13 || (citing In re Elec. Arts, Inc., 298 F. App’x 568, 570 (9th Cir. 2008)); TriQuint 14 || Semiconductor, Inc. v. Avago Techs. Ltd., No. CV-09-1531-PHX-JAT, 2012 WL 15 |} 1432519, at *7 (D. Ariz. Apr. 25, 2012). 16 Accordingly, the Court DENIES Defendant’s motions to file under seal. Instead, 17 redacted versions of Exhibits B, I, K, and P are appropriately filed. Any party may 18 || move to file unredacted versions at any time. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 21 || Dated: November 16, 2020 = 23 United States District Judge 24 25 26 27 28 19-cv-1392-GPC-MSB