Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00257/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00257-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Before Court is the request, lodged by Plaintiff to seal certain documents attached to the 

declaration of Wilmer Harris. (Doc. 39) For the most part, the documents at issue are medical 

records of Plaintiff and testimony about the records by a medical professional and the County’s Rule 

26 initial disclosures. For the reasons set forth below, the request is DENIED WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE.

I. Legal Authority

The request to seal documents is controlled by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). The 

Rule permits the Court to issue orders to “protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, 

oppression, or undue burden or expense, including . . . requiring that a trade secret or other 

confidential research, development, or commercial information not be revealed or be revealed only in 

a specified way.” Only if good cause exists may the Court seal the information from public view after 

balancing “the needs for discovery against the need for confidentiality.’” Pintos v. Pac. Creditors 

CHRISTINE DONALDSON,

 Plaintiff,

v.

KERN COUNTY, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:14-cv-00257 AWI JLT 

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE 

DEFENDANT’S REQUEST TO SEAL 

DOCUMENTS

Case 1:14-cv-00257-DAD-JLT Document 42 Filed 04/28/15 Page 1 of 4
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

Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. Cal. 2010) (quoting Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors 

Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1213 (9th Cir. 2002)).

Generally, documents filed in civil cases are presumed to be available to the public. EEOC v. 

Erection Co., 900 F.2d 168, 170 (9th Cir. 1990); see also Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 

447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir.2006); Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1134 (9th 

Cir.2003). Documents may be sealed only when the compelling reasons for doing so outweigh the 

public’s right of access. EEOC at 170. In evaluating the request, the Court considers the “public 

interest in understanding the judicial process and whether disclosure of the material could result in 

improper use of the material for scandalous or libelous purposes or infringement upon trade secrets.” 

Valley Broadcasting Co. v. United States District Court, 798 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1986).

Notably, this Court’s Local Rule 141 sets forth, procedurally, how a request to seal documents 

should proceed. First, as was done here, the requesting party files a Notice of Request to Seal 

Documents. L.R. 141(a). Concurrently with this filing, the requesting party lodges a Request to Seal 

Documents which addresses the specific pages of the documents sought to be sealed, the information 

contained therein and explanation for why the information should be shielded from public view. L.R. 

141(b). Ideally, at this time, Defendant would lodge also a proposed redacted copy of the documents 

with the private information obliterated. The email containing this lodged information must be copied 

to opposing counsel. Then, if there is no objection to the request to seal (L.R. 141(c)), the Court must 

determine whether each of the pages of the document should be shielded from public view or to what 

extent they should be.

Notably, here, there is virtually no discussion as to why the documents lodged with the Court 

should be sealed. For example, though the medical condition at issue was revealed to the public in her 

original complaint (Doc. 1 at 5), Plaintiff now seeks to seal her medical records detailing this 

condition. Plaintiff does not contend that the revelation of these materials would subject her to 

embarrassment and the Court is at loss to understand why it would. Though the Court recognizes 

there may be a few lines in the records unrelated to the current litigation which may not justify public 

exposure, Plaintiff has failed to direct the Court’s attention to this content. Likewise, the mere fact 

that County’s Rule 26 disclosure identifies witnesses who are not defendants in this case, does not 

Case 1:14-cv-00257-DAD-JLT Document 42 Filed 04/28/15 Page 2 of 4
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

give rise to a need to seal the records and, indeed, Plaintiff has failed to explain her belief why this 

information should be shielded from the public view.

It appears to the Court that Plaintiff seeks to seal these documents based upon the stipulate 

protected order entered at the request of the parties. However, this protective order does not act as a 

blanket sealing order and, in fact, the order itself requires compliance with Local Rule 141. (Doc. 28 

at 3, emphasis in the original [“Any effort to file documents under seal SHALL be pursuant to Local 

Rule 141.”] Local Rule 141(b) provides, in part:

The “Request to Seal Documents” shall set forth the statutory or other authority for 

sealing, the requested duration, the identity, by name or category, of persons to be 

permitted access to the documents, and all other relevant information.

Here, Plaintiff has failed to provide the legal authority for her request to seal the documents. 

Based upon the Court’s review, it appears that few, if any, of the documents may be sealed. 

However, because it appears Plaintiff was unaware that the protective order does not provide a 

sufficient legal basis to justify sealing the records and, apparently, has not had the opportunity to 

research the topics at issue, the request will be denied without prejudice. In the event Plaintiff renews 

this request, she should focus her efforts on determining what information on the specific pages should 

be sealed and only these specific pages should be lodged with the request. Again, as to this material, 

Plaintiff must explain what information should be sealed and why.

1

 L.R. 141 (b). The pages at issue 

must be Bate stamped and “paginated consecutively so that they may be identified without reference 

to their content, and the total number of submitted pages shall be stated in the request.” L.R. 141(b). 

Plaintiff should consult Local Rule 141 for the specifics of how to proceed.

///

///

///

///

///

///

 

1

For example, the Court is unclear why subpoenas duces tecum or deposition notices should be sealed.

Case 1:14-cv-00257-DAD-JLT Document 42 Filed 04/28/15 Page 3 of 4
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

ORDER

Based upon the foregoing, the Court ORDERS:

1. Plaintiff’s request to seal (Doc. 39) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 28, 2015 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00257-DAD-JLT Document 42 Filed 04/28/15 Page 4 of 4