Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-05564/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-05564-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 751
Nature of Suit: Labor - Family and Medical Leave Act
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Employment Discrimination

---

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

TERESA AGUIRRE,

Plaintiff,

v.

THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.16-cv-05564-HSG 

ORDER GRANTING 

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL

Re: Dkt. No. 79

Pending before the Court is the administrative motion to seal filed by Plaintiff Teresa 

Aguirre. Dkt. No. 79. For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS the motion.

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) (quoting 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 

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, 

Case 4:16-cv-05564-HSG Document 167 Filed 09/12/18 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

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 

privileged, protectable as a trade secret or otherwise 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 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).

II. DISCUSSION

Plaintiff moves to seal portions of Plaintiff’s deposition transcript and attached exhibits

because they contain “personal and confidential information regarding treatment Plaintiff received 

from her health care providers.” See Dkt. No. 79 at 1:8-11, 4:17-18. Plaintiff proposes filing a 

version of these documents in which roughly 22 pages of her 340-page deposition, Dkt. No. 79-1,

and 38 of the 76 pages of exhibits attached to the deposition, Dkt. No. 79-2, are redacted.

Case 4:16-cv-05564-HSG Document 167 Filed 09/12/18 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

Plaintiff’s deposition testimony and the exhibits Plaintiff seeks to seal are more than 

tangentially related to Plaintiff’s causes of action under the Family Medical Leave Act, 29 U.S.C. 

§ 2601 et seq. (“FMLA”) and the California Family Rights Act, Cal. Gov’t Code § 12945.2 

(“CFRA”). Therefore, the Court applies the “compelling reasons” standard. 

The Plaintiff has provided a compelling reason for sealing the selected portions of her 

deposition and attached exhibits because they contain detailed accounts of Plaintiff’s medical 

symptoms, diagnoses, and treatments. See Hunt v. Cont’l Cas. Co., No. 13-CV-05966, 2015 WL 

5355398, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 14, 2015) (“Plaintiff’s interest in preserving the privacy of her 

sensitive mental health records constitutes a compelling reason to seal”); Vietnam Veterans of Am. 

v. C.I.A., No. C 09-0037, 2012 WL 1094360, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 29, 2012) (sealing exhibits 

containing “sensitive personal information about certain individuals, including health records”).

The Court therefore GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to file the documents under seal.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

9/12/2018

Case 4:16-cv-05564-HSG Document 167 Filed 09/12/18 Page 3 of 3