Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-01920/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-01920-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Labor/Mgmnt. Relations

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ENRIQUE PAEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

AKIMA SUPPORT OPERATIONS LLC,

Defendant.

No. 2:21-cv-01920-DAD-AC

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S 

REQUEST TO SEAL

(Doc. No. 21)

On October 4, 2022, defendant filed a notice of its request to seal Exhibit 1-D-1 to its

cross-motion for summary judgment and opposition to plaintiff’s motion for partial summary 

judgment. (Doc. No. 21.) In its request, defendant explains that there are “compelling reasons” 

sufficient to outweigh the public’s interest in disclosure of court records because Exhibit 1-D-1 

consists of plaintiff’s medical records pertaining to his psychiatric treatment, and thus contain 

private, confidential, and sensitive information. (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff did not submit an opposition 

to defendant’s request to seal. For the reasons explained below, defendant’s request will be 

granted.

All documents filed with the court are presumptively public. San Jose Mercury News, 

Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Court, 187 F.3d 1096, 1103 (9th Cir. 1999) (“It is well-established that the fruits

of pretrial discovery are, in the absence of a court order to the contrary, presumptively public.”). 

“Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records and 

Case 2:21-cv-01920-DJC-AC Document 25 Filed 10/24/22 Page 1 of 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

2

documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 

447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 

597 & n.7 (1978)). Where a party seeks to seal records attached to dispositive motions, like 

defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment here, courts apply a “compelling reasons” 

standard, under which:

the court must conscientiously 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.

Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178–79 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). The party 

seeking to seal a judicial record bears the burden of meeting the “compelling reasons” standard. 

Id. at 1178. “In general, ‘compelling reasons’ sufficient to . . . justify sealing court records exist 

when such ‘court files might . . . 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). “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. 

“Medical records contain private, confidential, and often sensitive information, and courts 

often order medical records to be filed under seal.” United States v. Lopez-Perez, No. 1:14-cr0045-AWI, 2021 WL 809396, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 3, 2021); see Pratt v. Gamboa, No. 17-cv04375-LHK, 2020 WL 8992141, at *2 (N.D. Cal. May 22, 2020) (noting that “medical records 

are deemed confidential under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act” and that 

“[c]ourts routinely conclude that the need to protect medical privacy qualifies as a compelling 

reason for sealing records”) (internal quotation marks omitted) (citing cases); see also Johnsen v. 

Tambe, No. 19-cv-141-TSZ-MLP, 2019 WL 4014256, at *2 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 26, 2019)

(“find[ing] the plaintiff’s privacy interest in his own medical records to be a sufficiently 

compelling reason to seal the medical records themselves”). Here, too, the court concludes that 

defendant has shown that compelling reasons justify the sealing of Exhibit 1-D-1 to its crossCase 2:21-cv-01920-DJC-AC Document 25 Filed 10/24/22 Page 2 of 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

3

motion for summary judgment because that exhibit consists of plaintiff’s confidential medical 

records.

Accordingly, 

1. Defendant’s request to seal (Doc. No. 21) is granted; 

2. Exhibit 1-D-1 to defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment and opposition 

to plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment shall be filed under seal, for 

access only by the court and the parties; and

3. Defendant shall send a pdf copy of Exhibit 1-D-1 to defendant’s cross-motion for 

summary judgment and opposition to plaintiff’s motion for partial summary 

judgment via email to ApprovedSealed@caed.uscourts.gov for filing under seal on 

the docket in this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 21, 2022 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:21-cv-01920-DJC-AC Document 25 Filed 10/24/22 Page 3 of 3