Dunsmore v. State of California

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DARRYL DUNSMORE, ERNEST Case No.: 20-cv-00406-AJB-WVG ARCHULETA, ANTHONY 12 EDWARDS, REANNA LEVY, JOSUE ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION LOPEZ, CHRISTOPHER NELSON, 13 CHRISTOPHER NORWOOD, and TO FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL LAURA ZOERNER, on behalf of (Doc. No. 121) 14 themselves and all others similarly situated, 15 Plaintiffs, 16 v. 17 SAN DIEGO COUNTY SHERIFF’S 18 DEPARTMENT, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, CORRECTIONAL 19 HEALTHCARE PARTNERS, INC., TRI-CITY MEDICAL CENTER, 20 LIBERTY HEALTHCARE, INC., MID-AMERICA HEALTH, INC., 21 LOGAN HAAK, M.D., INC., SAN DIEGO COUNTY PROBATION 22 DEPARTMENT, and DOES 1 to 20, inclusive, 23 Defendants. 24 Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ motion to file documents under seal. (Doc. No. 121.) 25 Plaintiffs wish to seal certain exhibits offered in support of their motions for preliminary 26 injunction and provisional class certification. (Id. at 2.) There is no opposition to Plaintiffs’ 27 motion to seal. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1.d.1, the Court finds this motion suitable 28 1 for determination on the papers and without oral argument. For the reasons set forth below, 2 the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ motion. 3 I. LEGAL STANDARD 4 Courts have historically recognized a “general right to inspect and copy public 5 records and documents, including judicial records and documents.” Nixon v. Warner 6 Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978). “Unless a particular court record is one 7 ‘traditionally kept secret,’ a ‘strong presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.” 8 Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Foltz 9 v. State Farm. Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). In order to 10 overcome this strong presumption, a party seeking to seal a judicial record must articulate 11 justifications for sealing that outweigh the public policies favoring disclosure. See id. at 12 1178–79. “In turn, the court must ‘conscientiously balance[] the competing interests’ of 13 the public and the party who seeks to keep certain judicial records secret.” Id. at 1179 14 (quoting Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1135). The court must consider these interests and “base its 15 decision on a compelling reason and articulate the factual basis for its ruling, without 16 relying on hypothesis or conjecture.” Id. (quoting Hagestad v. Tragesser, 49 F.3d 1430, 17 1434 (9th Cir. 1995)) (internal quotations omitted). 18 A party seeking to seal a judicial record bears the burden of overcoming the strong 19 presumption of access. Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1135. The showing required to meet this burden 20 depends upon whether the documents to be sealed relate to a motion that is “more than 21 tangentially related to the merits of the case.” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 22 809 F.3d 1092, 1102 (9th Cir. 2016). When the underlying motion is more than tangentially 23 related to the merits, the “compelling reasons” standard applies. Id. at 1096–98. When the 24 underlying motion does not surpass the tangential relevance threshold, the “good cause” 25 standard applies. Id. 26 “In general, ‘compelling reasons’ sufficient to outweigh the public’s interest in 27 disclosure and justify sealing court records exists when such ‘court files might have 28 become a vehicle for improper purposes,’ such as the use of records to gratify private spite, 1 promote public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets.” Kamakana, 2 447 F.3d at 1179 (quoting Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598). However, “[t]he mere fact that the 3 production of records may lead to a litigant’s embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure 4 to further litigation will not, without more, compel the court to seal its records.” Id. (citing 5 Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1136). 6 II. DISCUSSION 7 Here, Plaintiffs seek to file under seal certain medical records of incarcerated 8 individuals. Because the Plaintiffs’ motions for preliminary injunction and provisional 9 class certification are more than tangentially related to the merits of the case, the 10 compelling reasons standard applies in determining whether to grant the ex parte motion 11 to seal. See Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1099–1102; see also Al Otro Lado, Inc. v. 12 McAleenan, Case No. 17-cv-02366-BAS-KSC, 2019 WL 6220898 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 13 2019) (finding motions for preliminary injunction and class certification to be more than 14 tangentially related to merits of the case). 15 The court recognizes that the need to protect medical privacy has qualified as a 16 “compelling reason” for sealing records. See, e.g., San Ramon Regional Med. Ctr., Inc. v. 17 Principal Life Ins. Co., No. C 10-02258 SBA, 2011 WL 89931, at *n.1 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 10, 18 2011). However, while the Court recognizes that medical privacy is a compelling reason 19 to warrant sealing, the Court also recognizes that the presumptive public right of access 20 addressed in Kamakana requires redaction of only those portions of the motions which 21 warrant sealing. See Bovier v. Bridgepoint Education/Ashford Univ., Case No.: 3:17-cv- 22 01052-GPC-JMA, 2018 WL 11411260, at *2 (S.D. Cal. June 27, 2018). The “compelling 23 reasons” rule requires the parties to “narrowly tailor[] their request to redact only the 24 portions of the filings and the precise exhibits” that are deemed confidential. See In Re 25 Qualcomm Litigation, No. 17-cv-108-GPC-MDD, 2017 WL 5176922, at *2 (S.D. Cal, 26 Nov. 8, 2017). 27 Here, to a certain extent, Plaintiffs have put their medical history at issue in this case. 28 Of course, even where a plaintiff has put their medical history at issue, “that does not mean | ||that the entirety of [their] medical records filed in connection with a motion (which 2 ||frequently contain records that pertain to unrelated medical information) need be 3 |}unnecessarily broadcast to the public.” Carmichael v. Aranas, Case No. 3:17-cv-00025- 4 ||MMD-WGC, 2017 WL 955183, at *2 (D. Nev. Mar. 10, 2017). However, the Court finds 5 || large portions of the exhibits that Plaintiffs wish to seal are not sealable because Plaintiffs 6 ||have put certain conditions, communications, and custody staff practices at issue. 7 ||Moreover, Plaintiffs do not provide the Court with redacted versions of the exhibits 8 ||showing which portions of the exhibits they believe are sealable. Accordingly, the Court 9 || DIRECTS Plaintiffs to file redacted versions of these documents that are “narrowly 10 tailored” and redact only the portions of the precise exhibits that present unrelated 11 ||confidential medical information. 12 Accordingly, the Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiffs’ ex parte 13 || motion to seal. (Doc. No. 121.) Plaintiffs may re-file the motion and respond to the Court’s 14 concerns that Plaintiffs have placed certain portions of the exhibits at issue. Plaintiffs must 15 || provide compelling reasons to seal the documents and must attach redacted versions of the 16 exhibits with only the sealable material redacted. 17 In the meantime, the Court instructs the Clerk to temporarily place the exhibits (Doc. 18 || No. 122) on restricted access. 19 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 Dated: June 6, 2022 © ¢ 22 Hon, Anthony J.Battaglia 23 United States District Judge 24 25 26 27 28