United States District Court, E.D. California
RAYMOND D. CHESTER, Plaintiff,
AUDREY KING, et al., Defendants.
GRANTING DEFENDANT POWERS' IN CAMERA REQUEST TO FILE
EXHIBITS UNDER SEAL ORDER FOR CLERK TO FILE UNDER SEAL: (1)
DEFENDANT POWERS' REQUEST TO FILE EXHIBITS UNDER SEAL;
AND (2) EXHIBIT “D” TO ANOUSH HOLADAY'S
DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT POWERS' MOTION FOR
S. AUSTIN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
D. Chester (“Plaintiff”) is a civil detainee
proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis
with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983. This case now proceeds with Plaintiff's First
Amended Complaint filed on August 31, 2017 against defendants
Audrey King (Executive Director), Jagsir Sandhu, M.D. (Chief
Medical Officer), Bradley Powers, M.D. (Unit Physician), and
Robert Withrow, M.D. (Medical Director of CSH) (collectively,
“Defendants”) for failing to provide adequate
medical care to Plaintiff in violation of the Fourteenth
Amendment. (ECF No. 10.)
21, 2019, Defendants filed a Stipulation and [proposed]
Protective Order regarding disclosure of confidential health
information and personal information. (ECF No. 30.) On July
2, 2019, the court approved the stipulated Protective Order
(ECF No. 32.)
August 19, 2019, defendant Bradley Powers, M.D.
(“Powers”) filed a motion for summary judgment.
(ECF No. 36.) On the same date, Powers filed a Notice of
Request to Seal Exhibits in support of the motion for summary
judgment. (ECF No. 36-11.) Also on August 19, 2019, Defendant
emailed to chambers:
(1) an in camera Request to Seal Exhibit
“D” to Anoush Holaday's Declaration in
support of Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment;
(2) a copy of Anoush Holaday's Declaration and its
Exhibits A, B, and C (ECF No. 36-3, 36-4, 36-5, 36-6); and
(3) an in camera unredacted copy of Exhibit
“D” to Anoush Holaday's Declaration
consisting of Plaintiff's supporting medical records to
about August 19, 2019, Plaintiff was served with Powers'
Notice of Request to Seal, Request to Seal, and the Exhibit
“D” documents proposed to be sealed, but has not
filed an opposition to the Request to Seal.
request to seal exhibits is now before the court. Local Rule
courts have recognized a strong presumption that judicial
records are accessible to the public. Kamakana v. City
and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir.
2006). “Unless a particular court record is one
‘traditionally kept secret,' a ‘strong
presumption in favor of access' is the starting
point.” Id. (quoting Foltz v. State Farm
Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir.
2003). Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2(d), a
court “may order that a filing be made under seal
without redaction, ” and the Supreme Court has
acknowledged that the decision to seal documents is
“one best left to the sound discretion of the trial
court, a discretion to be exercised in light of the relevant
facts and circumstances of the particular case, ”
Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589,
599, 98 S.Ct. 1306, 1312 (1978). Courts should consider
“the interests [of] the parties in light of the public
interest and the duty of the courts.” Hagestad v.
Tragesser, 49 F.3d 1430, 1434 (9th Cir. 1995) (quoting
Nixon, 435 U.S. at 602).
are two standards for a party to consider when it seeks to
file a document under seal: the compelling reasons standard
and the good cause standard. See Center for Auto Safety
v. Chrysler Group. LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096-97 (9th Cir.
2016). Under the compelling reasons standard, “a court
may seal records only when it finds ‘a compelling
reason and articulate[s] the factual basis for its ruling,
without relying on hypothesis or conjecture.”
Id. (quoting Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179).
“The court must then ‘conscientiously balance[ ]
the competing interests of the public and the party who seeks
to keep certain judicial records secret.” Id.
The Ninth Circuit has clarified that the key in determining
which standard to apply in assessing a motion for leave to
file a document under seal is whether the documents proposed
for sealing accompany a ...