Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02785/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02785-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1332nr Diversity-Notice of Removal

---

– 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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CINDY SALGADO,

Plaintiff,

Case No. 18-cv-2785-BAS-WVG

ORDER GRANTING JOINT

MOTION TO SEAL

PREVIOUSLY FILED 

DOCUMENTS

[ECF No. 41]

v.

IQVIA, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Plaintiff Cindy Salgado and Defendants Iqvia, Inc. and Quintiles Commercial 

US, Inc. filed cross-motions for summary judgment. As attachments to their motion, 

Defendants included various exhibits. A couple months after the motions were filed, 

Plaintiff moved ex parte to seal three of those exhibits. (ECF No. 41.) The exhibits 

are: ECF 34-8 (Dr. Carroll’s Report), ECF 34-19 (Plaintiff’s Medical Record), and 

ECF 34-21 (June 21, 2018 Letter from Unum to Plaintiff).

The Court denied without prejudice the ex parte motion to seal because it 

found that at least portions of the three exhibits are not sealable because Plaintiff has 

put certain conditions and communications with her doctors at issue in this case. 

(ECF No. 42.) Further, Plaintiff had not provided the Court with redacted versions 

of the exhibits showing which segments of the exhibits she believed to be sealable.

The parties now jointly move to seal portions of the three exhibits and attached 

Case 3:18-cv-02785-BAS-WVG Document 49 Filed 03/20/20 PageID.<pageID> 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

redacted versions of the exhibits to their motion.

I. LEGAL STANDARD

“[T]he courts of this country recognize a general right to inspect and copy 

public records and documents, including judicial records and documents.” Nixon v. 

Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978). “Unless a particular court record 

is one ‘traditionally kept secret,’ a ‘strong presumption in favor of access’ is the 

starting point.” Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 

2006) (citing Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 

2003)). “The presumption of access is ‘based on the need for federal courts, although 

independent—indeed, particularly because they are independent—to have a measure 

of accountability and for the public to have confidence in the administration of 

justice.’” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 

2016) (quoting United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1048 (2d Cir. 1995)).

A party seeking to seal a judicial record bears the burden of overcoming the 

strong presumption of access. Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1135. The showing required to 

meet this burden depends upon whether the documents to be sealed relate to a motion 

that is “more than tangentially related to the merits of the case.” Ctr. for Auto Safety, 

809 F.3d at 1102. When the underlying motion is more than tangentially related to 

the merits, the “compelling reasons” standard applies. Id. at 1096–98. When the 

underlying motion does not surpass the tangential relevance threshold, the “good 

cause” standard applies. Id.

“In general, ‘compelling reasons’ sufficient to outweigh the public’s interest 

in disclosure and justify sealing court records exists 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.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (quoting Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598). However, 

“[t]he 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 

Case 3:18-cv-02785-BAS-WVG Document 49 Filed 03/20/20 PageID.<pageID> 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

court to seal its records.” Id. (citing Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1136). 

II. ANALYSIS

Plaintiff seeks to seal certain medical records, history, and information. 

Because the parties’ motions for summary judgment are more than tangentially 

related to the merits of the case, the compelling reasons standard applies in 

determining whether to grant the motion to seal.

Courts throughout the Ninth Circuit have recognized that the need to protect 

medical privacy generally qualifies as a compelling reason to seal records. Weisberg 

v. Takeda Pharm. U.S.A., Inc., No. CV 18-784 PA (JCX), 2018 WL 6252458, at *2 

(C.D. Cal. July 3, 2018); Racies v. Quincy Bioscience, LLC, No. 15-cv-00292-HSG, 

2017 WL 6405612, at *2, (N.D. Cal. Dec. 15, 2017); Carmichael v. Aranas, No. 

3:17-cv-00025-MMD-WGC, 2017 WL 955183, at *2 (D. Nev. Mar. 10, 2017). The 

Court previously expressed concerns about sealing information that Plaintiff had put 

at issue in this case. In the renewed motion, Plaintiff seeks to seal limited 

information. Upon review of the exhibits, the Court finds the redacted information 

constitutes private medical and personal information of Plaintiff and others that 

seems irrelevant to the issues of the case. See Carmichael, 2017 WL 955183, at *2

(holding even where a plaintiff has put her medical history at issue, “that does not 

mean that the entirety of [her] medical records filed in connection with a motion 

(which frequently contain records that pertain to unrelated medical information) need 

be unnecessarily broadcast to the public”).

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the Joint Motion to Seal. The Clerk is 

instructed to seal the previously filed documents: ECF 34-8, ECF 34-19, and ECF 

34-21.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 20, 2020

Case 3:18-cv-02785-BAS-WVG Document 49 Filed 03/20/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3