Gaines v. Warden Hutchings ( 2023 )

1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 4 * * * 5 John Gaines a/k/a Kenya Gaines, Case No. 2:21-cv-02215-ART-DJA 6 Plaintiff, 7 Order v. 8 S. Butler, et al., 9 Defendants. 10 11 Before the Court is Defendants Stephanie Butler and Julio Mesa’s motion to file Exhibits 12 A-F to their motion for summary judgment under seal. (ECF No. 28). Plaintiff is an inmate in 13 the custody of the Nevada Department of Corrections. (Id. at 3). Defendants explain that 14 Exhibits A-F contain Plaintiff’s medical and institutional records, the publication of which could 15 create security concerns in the prison context. (Id. at 1). 16 A party seeking to file a confidential document under seal must file a motion to seal and 17 must comply with the Ninth Circuit’s directives in Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 18 447 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2006) and Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Group, LLC, 809 F.3d 1092 19 (9th Cir. 2016). A party seeking to seal judicial records attached to motions more than 20 tangentially related to the merits of the case must meet the “compelling reasons” standard. See 21 Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1183; Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1101. For records attached to 22 motions not more than tangentially related to the merits of the case, the “good cause” standard 23 applies. See Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d 1095, 1101. 24 Under the compelling reasons standard, a court may seal a record only if it finds 25 “compelling reasons” to support such treatment and articulates “the factual basis for its ruling, 26 without relying on hypothesis or conjecture.” Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1096-97. 27 Compelling reasons exist when such court files might have become a vehicle for improper 1 libelous statements, or release trade secrets. Id. at 1097 (internal quotations and citations 2 omitted). The compelling reasons must be “supported by specific factual findings,” that outweigh 3 “the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure, such as the public 4 interest in understanding the judicial process.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178-79 (internal 5 quotations and citations omitted). The Ninth Circuit has rejected efforts to seal documents under 6 the ”compelling reasons” standard based on “conclusory statements about the contents of the 7 documents—that they are confidential” and that, in general, their disclosure would be harmful to 8 the movant. Id. at 1182. Furthermore, any “requests to seal documents must be ‘narrowly 9 tailored’ to remove from the public sphere only the material that warrants secrecy.” Florence v. 10 Cenlar Fed. Sav. & Loan, No. 2:16-cv-00587, 2017 WL 1078637, at *2 (D. Nev. March 20, 11 2017). “As a corollary, to the extent any confidential information can be easily redacted while 12 leaving meaningful information available to the public, the court must order that redacted 13 versions be filed rather than sealing entire documents.” Id.; see In re Roman Catholic Archbishop 14 of Portland in Oregon, 661 F.3d 417, 425 (9th Cir. 2011); see Welch v. Minev, No. 2:19-cv- 15 01064-GMN-BNW, 2022 WL 4809269, at *2 (D. Nev. Oct. 1, 2022). 16 Here, as a preliminary matter, the Court finds that the compelling reasons standard applies 17 because the exhibits are attached to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The Court finds 18 that Defendants have met this standard for Exhibits E-F, which is comprised entirely of Plaintiffs’ 19 medical records. Courts in the Ninth Circuit commonly seal medical information under the 20 compelling reasons standard. See Steven City Broomfield v. Aranas, No. 3:17-cv-00683, 2020 21 WL 2549945, at *2 (D. Nev. May 19, 2020) (compiling cases). 22 However, Exhibits A-D contain Plaintiffs’ grievance and investigation reports, which only 23 occasionally refer to medical information. And while the Defendants point out that entry of these 24 documents onto the public record could endanger Plaintiff, they do not explain why. Nor do 25 Defendants address whether the medical information and dangerous information contained in 26 those records could be redacted. 27 1 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants’ motion to seal (ECF No. 28) is 2 granted in part regarding Exhibits E-F and denied in part regarding Exhibits A-D. 3 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants shall file a renewed motion to seal 4 providing additional explanation regarding Exhibits A-D, whether those exhibits can be redacted, 5 and why those exhibits pose a danger on or before May 19, 2023. 6 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Exhibits A-F (ECF No. 29) shall remain under seal 7 until the Court’s decision on Defendants’ renewed motion to seal. 8 9 DATED: May 5, 2023 10 DANIEL J. ALBREGTS 11 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27