Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00380/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00380-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:0402 Social Security Benefits

---

1

3:18-cv-00380-LAB-KSC

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

TRAVIS MORGAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Officially as 

Acting Commissioner of the Social 

Security Administration, 

 Defendant.

Case No.: 3:18-cv-00380-LAB-KSC

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION 

TO SEAL

[Doc. No. 19].

Presently before the Court is plaintiff’s Motion to Seal. [Doc. No. 19]. Plaintiff 

asserts defendant has “recklessly [ ] violated FRCP 5.2(a)(1)” by filing the Administrative 

Record [Doc. No. 13], which contains plaintiff’s social security number, date of birth, and 

likely his IRS account number. [Id. at p. 1]. He also asserts the personal identifying 

information of his two children is impermissibly included the record. [Id.]. For that reason, 

he requests the case be immediately sealed. [Id.]. 

Defendant, in opposition, argues Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2(b)(2) “exempts 

‘the record of an administrative or agency proceeding’ from redaction requirements.” [Doc. 

Case 3:18-cv-00380-LAB-KSC Document 22 Filed 06/27/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

3:18-cv-00380-LAB-KSC

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

No. 21 at p. 2]. Moreover, defendant argues the case need not be sealed because remote 

access is already limited to attorneys and parties. [Id.].

The general rule in the Ninth Circuit strongly favors public access to documents filed 

with the courts. Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 

2006). Sealing a case file is not warranted merely because personal, identifying 

information, is contained in the administrative record of a social security disability claims 

matter. See, e.g., Wong v. Astrue, No. C 08-02432, 2008 WL 2323860, at *1 (N.D. Cal. 

May 20, 2008); Ricks v. Colvin, No. RWT 14-1607, 2016 WL 97854, at *7 (D. Md. Jan. 8, 

2016). Moreover, defendant has not violated Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2 insofar 

as plaintiff’s personal information is contained in the administrative record. Fed. R. Civ. P. 

5.2(b)(2) and (c)(1)-(2) (“[A]ccess to an electronic file is authorized as follows: [ ] the 

parties and their attorneys may have remote electronic access to any part of the case file, 

including the administrative record[,] any other person may have electronic access to the

full record at the courthouse, [but remote access only to] an opinion, order, or other 

disposition of the court, [ ] not any other part of the case file or the administrative record”). 

No compelling reason has been given why the plaintiff’s identifying information must be 

sealed to overcome the strong Ninth Circuit presumption.

However, plaintiff also arguesthat the Administrative Record [Doc. No. 13] contains 

personal, identifying information of his two children. [Doc. No. 19 at p. 1]. As to this 

issue, the Motion is vaguely worded and does not clearly convey what specific information 

regarding plaintiff’s children might be contained in the administrative record.

1 The Court 

will not make plaintiff’s argument for him.

///

///

 

1 The exact wording in plaintiff’s Motion is: “On May 8, 2018, Defendant, Nancy Berryhill through her 

attorney, filed complete records of proceedings in this case and contains 688 pages of records which 

contain full social security numbers, dates of births and minor children’s full names and IRS account 

numbers.” [Doc. No. 19 at p. 1]. 

Case 3:18-cv-00380-LAB-KSC Document 22 Filed 06/27/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

3:18-cv-00380-LAB-KSC

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

Because the record of an agency proceeding is exempted from the general redaction 

requirement, absent more, the Court cannot grant plaintiff’s Motion at this time. See Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 5.2(b).

Accordingly, plaintiff’s Motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 27, 2018

Case 3:18-cv-00380-LAB-KSC Document 22 Filed 06/27/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3