Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02785/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02785-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1332nr Diversity-Notice of Removal

---

– 1 –

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CINDY SALGADO,

Plaintiff,

Case No. 18-cv-2785-BAS-WVG

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF’S EX 

PARTE MOTION TO SEAL A 

PREVIOUSLY FILED 

DOCUMENT

[ECF No. 41]

v.

IQVIA, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Plaintiff Cindy Salgado and Defendants Iqvia, Inc. and Quintiles Commercial 

US, Inc. filed cross-motions for summary judgment. As attachments to their motion, 

Defendants included various exhibits. Plaintiff now moves ex parte to seal three of 

those exhibits. (ECF No. 41.) Plaintiff provides that the documents were designated 

as confidential as a part of the parties’ protective order because they “reflect 

Plaintiff’s private medical and mental health information.” Plaintiff wishes to seal 

ECF 34-8 (Dr. Carroll’s Report), ECF 34-19 (Plaintiff’s Medical Record), and ECF 

34-21 (June 21, 2018 Letter from Unum to Plaintiff).

I. LEGAL STANDARD

“[T]he courts of this country recognize a general right to inspect and copy 

public records and documents, including judicial records and documents.” Nixon v. 

Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978). “Unless a particular court record 

Case 3:18-cv-02785-BAS-WVG Document 42 Filed 01/23/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 5
– 2 –

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

is one ‘traditionally kept secret,’ a ‘strong presumption in favor of access’ is the 

starting point.” Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 

2006) (citing Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 

2003)). “The presumption of access is ‘based on the need for federal courts, although 

independent—indeed, particularly because they are independent—to have a measure 

of accountability and for the public to have confidence in the administration of 

justice.’” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 

2016) (quoting United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1048 (2d Cir. 1995)).

A party seeking to seal a judicial record bears the burden of overcoming the 

strong presumption of access. Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1135. The showing required to 

meet this burden depends upon whether the documents to be sealed relate to a motion 

that is “more than tangentially related to the merits of the case.” Ctr. for Auto Safety, 

809 F.3d at 1102. When the underlying motion is more than tangentially related to 

the merits, the “compelling reasons” standard applies. Id. at 1096–98. When the 

underlying motion does not surpass the tangential relevance threshold, the “good 

cause” standard applies. Id.

“In general, ‘compelling reasons’ sufficient to outweigh the public’s interest 

in disclosure and justify sealing court records exists when such ‘court files might 

have become a vehicle for improper purposes,’ such as the use of records to gratify 

private spite, promote public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade

secrets.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (quoting Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598). However, 

“[t]he mere fact that the production of records may lead to a litigant’s embarrassment, 

incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will not, without more, compel the 

court to seal its records.” Id. (citing Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1136). 

II. ANALYSIS

Certain background information is relevant. Plaintiff was employed by 

Defendant Iqvia. Plaintiff provides that in 2017, she took pregnancy disability leave, 

gave birth to her child, and then took bonding leave from her job. (ECF No. 29-1, at 

Case 3:18-cv-02785-BAS-WVG Document 42 Filed 01/23/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 5
– 3 –

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

8.) Plaintiff claims she then “began treatment for postpartum depression and anxiety 

and placed off work by her medical providers due to said postpartum depression and 

anxiety.” (Id. at 8–9.) Plaintiff told Iqvia of her intended modified schedule when 

she returned to work, and Iqvia informed her that they were unable to support such 

an accommodation. (Id. at 10.) Iqvia eventually terminated Plaintiff’s employment. 

(Id.) Plaintiff sued Iqvia for violating California’s Fair Employment and Housing 

Act (“FEHA”) by failing to provide her reasonable accommodation for her 

pregnancy-related disability and by terminating her because of her disability. She 

also claims Iqvia violated the California Family Rights Act by failing to provide her 

with 12 weeks of leave. Iqvia claims that Plaintiff “fabricated post-partum 

depression (“PPD”) symptoms in order to convince her doctor to place her on 

disability-related leave.” (ECF No. 28-1, at 6.) Iqvia claims it was unable to 

accommodate Plaintiff’s proposed modified work schedule due to the job 

responsibilities, and Plaintiff was terminated due to business needs.

Plaintiff seeks to seal certain medical records, history, and information. 

Because the parties’ motions for summary judgment are more than tangentially 

related to the merits of the case, the compelling reasons standard applies in 

determining whether to grant the ex parte motion to seal.

Courts throughout the Ninth Circuit have recognized that the need to protect 

medical privacy generally qualifies as a compelling reason to seal records. Weisberg 

v. Takeda Pharm. U.S.A., Inc., No. CV 18-784 PA (JCX), 2018 WL 6252458, at *2 

(C.D. Cal. July 3, 2018); Racies v. Quincy Bioscience, LLC, No. 15-cv-00292-HSG, 

2017 WL 6405612, at *2, (N.D. Cal. Dec. 15, 2017); Carmichael v. Aranas, Case 

No. 3:17-cv-00025-MMD-WGC, 2017 WL 955183, at *2 (D. Nev. Mar. 10, 2017). 

Furthermore, under California law, a patient has a privilege to refuse to disclose, and 

to prevent others from disclosing, confidential communication between patient and 

physician. Cal. Evid. Code § 994. However, a patient-litigant has no privilege as to 

communication relevant to an issue concerning the patient’s condition if the patient 

Case 3:18-cv-02785-BAS-WVG Document 42 Filed 01/23/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 5
– 4 –

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

put that condition at issue. Cal. Evid. Code § 996 (“There is no privilege under this 

article as to a communication relevant to an issue concerning the condition of the 

patient if such issue has been tendered by [t]he patient.”); Weisberg, 2018 WL 

6252458, at *2.

To a certain extent, Plaintiff has put her medical history at issue in this case. 

Of course, even where a plaintiff has put her medical history at issue, “that does not 

mean that the entirety of [her] medical records filed in connection with a motion 

(which frequently contain records that pertain to unrelated medical information) need 

be unnecessarily broadcast to the public.” Carmichael, 2017 WL 955183, at *2. The 

portions of the three exhibits that contain medical information unrelated to the issues 

in this case are therefore sealable. However, the Court finds that at least part of the 

three documents that Plaintiff wishes to seal are not sealable because Plaintiff has 

put certain conditions and communications with her doctors at issue. And further, 

Plaintiff does not provide the Court with redacted versions of the exhibits showing 

which portions of the exhibits she believes sealable.1

/ / /

 1 Further, Plaintiff points out that some of the documents contain her full date of birth in violation 

of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2(a) (filings may include only the 

year of the individual’s birth). Plaintiff’s full date of birth is sealable. Plaintiff also argues that 

this district’s local rules prohibit filings with one’s home address. This is incorrect— this rule only 

applies to criminal cases. See U.S. Dist. Court for the S. Dist. of Cal., Electronic Case Filing 

Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual §1(h)(5) (2019), available at

https://www.casd.uscourts.gov/_assets/pdf/attorney/Electronic%20Case%20Filing%20Procedure

s%20Manual.pdf.

Case 3:18-cv-02785-BAS-WVG Document 42 Filed 01/23/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 5
– 5 –

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Accordingly, the Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s ex 

parte motion to seal. (ECF No. 41.) Plaintiff may re-file the motion and respond to 

the Court’s concerns that Plaintiff has placed certain portions of the exhibits at issue. 

Plaintiff must provide compelling reasons to seal the documents. Plaintiff must 

attach as exhibits redacted versions of the three exhibits with only the sealable 

material redacted.

In the meantime, the Court instructs the Clerk to temporarily place the three 

exhibits (ECF 34-8, ECF 34-19, and ECF 34-21) on restricted access.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 23, 2020

Case 3:18-cv-02785-BAS-WVG Document 42 Filed 01/23/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 5