Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-01846/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-01846-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Auto Negligence

---

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FAYE VADEN, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

LINN STAR TRANSFER, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 19-cv-01846-HSG 

ORDER GRANTING 

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO 

SEAL

Re: Dkt. No. 54

Pending before the Court is an omnibus administrative motion, in which Plaintiffs Faye 

Vaden and Alma Jackson ask the Court to (1) appoint a guardian ad litem for Plaintiff Jackson; 

and (2) seal Plaintiff Jackson’s health and financial records, which were attached in support of the 

motion. See Dkt. No. 54. The Court granted the motion in part on December 4, 2019, appointing 

Plaintiff Vaden as guardian ad litem for Plaintiff Jackson. See Dkt. No. 57. For the reasons 

detailed below, the Court further GRANTS the motion to seal.

I. LEGAL STANDARD

Courts generally apply a “compelling reasons” standard when considering motions to seal 

documents. Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing Kamakana 

v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006)). “This standard derives from 

the common law right ‘to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial 

records and documents.’” Id. (quoting Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178). “[A] strong presumption in 

favor of access is the starting point.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178 (quotation omitted). To 

overcome this strong presumption, the party seeking to seal a judicial record attached to a 

dispositive motion must “articulate compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that 

outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure, such as the 

Case 4:19-cv-01846-HSG Document 58 Filed 12/05/19 Page 1 of 3
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

public interest in understanding the judicial process” and “significant public events.” Id. at 1178–

79 (quotation omitted). “In general, ‘compelling reasons’ sufficient to outweigh the public’s 

interest in disclosure and justify sealing court records exist 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.” Id. at 1179 

(quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978)). “The 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.

The Court must “balance[] the competing interests of the public and the party who seeks to 

keep certain judicial records secret. After considering these interests, if the court decides to seal 

certain judicial records, it must base its decision on a compelling reason and articulate the factual 

basis for its ruling, without relying on hypothesis or conjecture.” Id. Civil Local Rule 79-5 

supplements the compelling reasons standard set forth in Kamakana: the party seeking to file a 

document or portions of it under seal must “establish[] that the document, or portions thereof, 

are . . . entitled to protection under the law . . . The request must be narrowly tailored to seek 

sealing only of sealable material.” Civil L.R. 79-5(b). 

Records attached to nondispositive motions, however, are not subject to the same strong 

presumption of access. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179. Because such records “are often 

unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action,” parties moving to seal 

must meet the lower “good cause” standard of Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

Id. at 1179–80 (quotation omitted). This requires only a “particularized showing” that “specific 

prejudice or harm will result” if the information is disclosed. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. 

Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210–11 (9th Cir. 2002); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). 

“Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples of articulated reasoning” will 

not suffice. Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992) (quotation 

omitted).

Because Plaintiffs’ motion to appoint a guardian ad litem is a nondispositive motion, the 

Court applies the lower “good cause” standard to Plaintiffs’ request to file certain exhibits attached 

Case 4:19-cv-01846-HSG Document 58 Filed 12/05/19 Page 2 of 3
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

to that motion under seal.

II. ANALYSIS

The Court finds that good cause exists to seal Dkt. Nos. 54-3, Exs. 1 & 2; 54-5; and 54-6,

as they consist of highly sensitive and otherwise confidential medical and banking records, as well 

as references to these records. And the Court finds that the public’s interest in disclosure of this 

information is low as these records are not the subject of the lawsuit. See San Ramon Reg’l Med. 

Ctr., Inc. v. Principal Life Ins. Co., No. 10–cv–02258–SBA, 2011 WL 89931, at *1, n.1 (N.D. Cal. 

Jan. 10, 2011) (finding that confidentiality of medical records under the Health Insurance 

Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 outweighed presumption in favor of public access to 

court records). Rather, they were attached to explain Plaintiff Jackson’s need for a guardian ad 

litem to pursue this action.

Although Plaintiffs’ counsel proposed redactions to Plaintiff Jackson’s medical and 

financial records at Dkt. Nos. 54-3, Exs. 1 & 2, the Court finds that good cause exists to seal these 

records in their entirety. See id. Even in redacted form, the documents reveal sensitive 

information to which the public has no need to review as part of this action. The Court cautions 

Plaintiffs’ counsel to act with care in the future before filing her clients’ medical information on 

the public docket. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the motion to seal as to Dkt. Nos. 54-3; 54-

5; and 54-6 in their entirety. Plaintiffs’ counsel shall file a fully redacted version of Dkt. No. 54-3, 

the “Petition of Faye Vaden for Order Appointing Her the Legal Guardian Ad Litem of Alma 

Jackson,” without the now-sealed Exhibits 1 and 2, by December 13, 2019.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 12/5/2019

______________________________________

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 4:19-cv-01846-HSG Document 58 Filed 12/05/19 Page 3 of 3