Hernandez v. Russell ( 2024 )

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 FRAN MANUEL HERNANDEZ, Case No.: 3:20-cv-00114-MMD-CSD 4 Plaintiff Order 5 v. Re: ECF Nos. 141, 152 6 PERRY RUSSELL, et al., 7 Defendants 8 Before the court are two motions filed by Defendants seeking leave to file exhibits 9 containing Plaintiff’s medical records under seal. (ECF Nos. 141, 152.) The motions are filed in 10 connection with Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff opposes the motions. (ECF 11 Nos. 145, 155.) 12 "Historically, courts have recognized a general right to inspect and copy public records 13 and documents, including judicial records and documents." Kamakana v. City and County of 14 Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 15 "'Throughout our history, the open courtroom has been a fundamental feature of the American 16 judicial system. Basic principles have emerged to guide judicial discretion respecting public 17 access to judicial proceedings. These principles apply as well to the determination of whether to 18 permit access to information contained in court documents because court records often provide 19 important, sometimes the only, bases or explanations for a court's decision.'" Oliner v. 20 Kontrabecki, 745 F.3d 1024, 1025 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. 21 v. F.T.C., 710 F.2d 1165, 1177 (6th Cir. 1983)). 22 Documents that have been traditionally kept secret, including grand jury transcripts and 23 warrant materials in a pre-indictment investigation, come within an exception to the general right 1 of public access. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178. Otherwise, "a strong presumption in favor of 2 access is the starting point." Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). "The 3 presumption of access is 'based on the need for federal courts, although independent—indeed, 4 particularly because they are independent—to have a measure of accountability and for the 5 public to have confidence in the administration of justice.'" Center for Auto Safety v. Chrysler 6 Group, LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2016), cert. denied, 137 S.Ct. 38 (Oct. 3, 2016) 7 (quoting United States v. Amodeo (Amodeo II), 71 F.3d 1044, 1048 (2nd Cir. 1995); Valley 8 Broad Co. v. U.S. Dist. Ct., D. Nev., 798 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1986)). 9 There are two possible standards a party must address when it seeks to file a document 10 under seal: the compelling reasons standard or the good cause standard. Center for Auto Safety, 11 809 F.3d at 1096-97. Under the compelling reasons standard, "a court may seal records only 12 when it finds 'a compelling reason and articulate[s] the factual basis for its ruling, without 13 relying on hypothesis or conjecture.'" Id. (quoting Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179). The court must 14 "'conscientiously balance[ ] the competing interests of the public and the party who seeks to keep 15 certain judicial records secret.'" Id. "What constitutes a 'compelling reason' is 'best left to the 16 sound discretion of the trial court.'" Id. (quoting Nixon v. Warner Comm., Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 599 17 (1978)). "Examples include when a court record might be used to 'gratify private spite or 18 promote public scandal,' to circulate 'libelous' statements, or 'as sources of business information 19 that might harm a litigant's competitive standing.'" Id. 20 The good cause standard, on the other hand, is the exception to public access that has 21 been typically applied to "sealed materials attached to a discovery motion unrelated to the merits 22 of the case." Id. (citation omitted). "The 'good cause language comes from Rule 26(c)(1), which 23 governs the issuance of protective orders in the discovery process: The court may, for good 1 cause, issue an order to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or 2 undue burden or expense.'" Id. 3 The Ninth Circuit has clarified that the key in determining which standard to apply is 4 whether the documents proposed for sealing accompany a motion that is "more than tangentially 5 related to the merits of a case." Center for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1101. If that is the case, the 6 compelling reasons standard is applied. If not, the good cause standard is applied. 7 Here, Defendants seek to file exhibits under seal in connection with their motion for 8 summary judgment, which is unquestionably "more than tangentially related to the merits of a 9 case." Therefore, the compelling reasons standard applies. 10 This court, and others within the Ninth Circuit, have recognized that the need to protect 11 medical privacy qualifies as a "compelling reason" for sealing records. See, e.g., Moreno v. 12 Adamson, No. 3:19-cv-0330-MMD-CLB, 2021 WL 76722 (De. Nev. Jan. 7, 2021); San Ramon 13 Regional Med. Ctr., Inc. v. Principal Life Ins. Co., No. C 10-02258 SBA, 2011 WL89931, at 14 *n.1 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 10, 2011); Abbey v. Hawaii Employers Mut. Ins. Co., No. 09-000545 15 SOM/BMK, 2010 WL4715793, at * 1-2 (D. HI. Nov. 15, 2010); Wilkins v. Ahern, No. C 08- 16 1084 MMC (PR), 2010 WL3755654 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 24, 2010); Lombardi v. TriWest Healthcare 17 Alliance Corp., No. CV-08-02381-PHX-FJM, 2009 WL 1212170, at * 1 (D.Ariz. May 4, 2009). 18 This is because a person’s medical records contain sensitive and private information about their 19 health. While a plaintiff puts certain aspects of his medical condition at issue when he files an 20 action alleging deliberate indifference to a serious medical need under the Eighth Amendment, 21 that does not mean that the entirety of his medical records filed in connection with a motion 22 (which frequently contain records that pertain to unrelated medical information) need be 23 unnecessarily broadcast to the public. In other words, the plaintiff’s interest in keeping his 1} sensitive health information confidential outweighs the public’s need for direct access to the medical records. 3 In this case, however, Plaintiff’s responses to the motions indicate that he waives any 4|| privacy interest in his sensitive medical information and agrees to make the documents public. 5|| Therefore, compelling reasons do not exist for sealing these records, and Defendants’ motions 6|| for leave to file the exhibits under seal are denied. 7 CONCLUSION 8 Defendants’ motions (ECF Nos. 141, 152 ) are DENIED, and the Clerk shall UNSEAL 9|| the exhibits set forth at ECF Nos. 142-1 to 142-2 and 153-1 to 153-4. 10} IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: May 6, 2024 12 Cc SS C x Craig S. Denney 13 United States Magistrate Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23