Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Nicole Chaker, An Individual v. Robert Adams

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


April 8, 2013

NICOLE CHAKER, AN INDIVIDUAL,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
ROBERT ADAMS, AN INDIVIDUAL; OFFICER
HERZIG, AN INDIVIDUAL;
CITY OF SAN DIEGO, A GOVERNMENT ENTITY; AND DOES 1- 50, INCLUSIVE DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Gonzalo P. Curiel United States District Judge

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REDACT PORTIONS OF TRANSCRIPT HEARING DATED MARCH 15, 2013 [Dkt. No. 46.]

On March 27, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion to redact portions of the transcript hearing dated March 15, 2013. (Dkt. No. 46.) She seeks to redact or, in essence, seal "any statement by Plaintiff concerning a medical diagnosis, status, or treatment." (Id.)

"There is a strong presumption in favor of access to court records." Foltz v. State Farm, 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003). In determining whether to seal part of the judicial record, the Court "must base its decision on a compelling reason and articulate the factual basis for its ruling, without relying on hypothesis or conjecture." Fleming v. Escort, Inc., 2013 WL 1290418, *4 (D. Idaho March 27, 2013) (citing Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1135). "Unlike private materials unearthed during discovery, judicial records are public documents almost by definition, and the public is entitled to access by default." Kamakana v. City of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1180 (9th Cir. 2006).

Here, Plaintiff does not specify which specific portions of the transcript she seeks to redact or seal. Any comments about Plaintiff's medical condition were raised by her and her medical condition was addressed in general terms. A review of the transcript does not reveal any specific medical diagnosis. Second, her citation to Roe v. Sherry, 91 F.3d 1270, 1274 (9 Cir .1996) is misplaced as that case concerned privacy interests against governmental interests in a Bivens*fn1 action. Plaintiff has not provided a compelling reason to rebut the strong presumption in favor of public access to court documents. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's motion to redact portions of the transcript hearing dated March 15, 2013.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.