Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01986/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01986-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331cv Fed. Question: Other Civil Rights

---

1

16-CV-1986 W (WVG)

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

ALTON JONES,

Plaintiff,

v.

U.S. BORDER PATROL AGENT 

HERNANDEZ, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 16-CV-1986 W (WVG)

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 

EX PARTE APPLICATION TO FILE 

DOCUMENT UNDER SEAL 

[DOC. 105]

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s ex parte application to file an expert report 

under seal. [Doc. 105.] No opposition has been filed. The Court decides the matter 

without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1(d)(1). For the following reasons, 

the Court GRANTS the ex parte application.

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

Case 3:16-cv-01986-W-WVG Document 113 Filed 07/23/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2

16-CV-1986 W (WVG)

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

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff brought this civil rights action on August 8, 2016. (Compl. [Doc. 1].) 

The Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”) alleges violations of state and federal law, and 

of the U.S. Constitution pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. 

Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), all arising from an altercation with CBP 

agents on August 9, 2014 at the Border Field State Park in San Diego. 

(See TAC [Doc. 72].)

Plaintiff now applies to the Court to file an expert report under seal on the ground 

that it contains sensitive medical information. (Ex Parte App. [Doc. 105].) 

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Federal law creates a strong presumption in favor of public access to court records. 

But this right of access is not absolute. San Jose Mercury News, Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Court–

N. Dist. (San Jose), 187 F.3d 1096, 1102 (9th Cir. 1999). “Every court has supervisory 

power over its own records and files[,]” and may provide access to court documents at its 

discretion. See Hagestad v. Tragesser, 49 F.3d 1430, 1434 (9th Cir. 1995) (quoting

Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978)). District courts 

therefore have authority to seal and unseal court records, a power that derives from their 

inherent supervisory power. See Hagestad, 49 F.3d at 1434. 

When a district court is asked to seal court records in a civil case, the presumption 

in favor of access can be overcome by a showing of “sufficiently important 

countervailing interests.” See San Jose Mercury News, 187 F.3d at 1102. The factors 

relevant to determining whether this presumption has been overcome include 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.’ ” Hagestad, 49 F.3d at 1434 (quoting EEOC v. 

Erection Co., Inc., 900 F.2d 168, 170 (9th Cir. 1990). “After taking all relevant factors 

into consideration, the district court must base its decision on a compelling reason and 

Case 3:16-cv-01986-W-WVG Document 113 Filed 07/23/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3

16-CV-1986 W (WVG)

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

articulate the factual basis for its ruling, without relying on hypothesis or conjecture.” Id.

(citing Valley Broad. Co. v. United States Dist. Court, 798 F.2d 1289, 1295 (9th Cir. 

1986)). 

As a natural consequence of the public’s right of access to records in civil cases, 

the presumption of public access cannot be overcome by a mere stipulation of the parties. 

As Judge Posner recognized, the district judge is duty-bound to scrutinize any request to 

seal court documents and therefore “may not rubber stamp a stipulation to seal the 

record.” Citizens First Nat. Bank of Princeton v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 178 F.3d 943, 945 

(7th Cir. 1999); accord City of Hartford v. Chase, 942 F.2d 130, 136 (1st Cir. 1991) 

(“[T]he trial court—not the parties themselves—should scrutinize every such agreement 

involving the sealing of court papers and what, if any, of them are to be sealed . . . .”). 

III. DISCUSSION

The need to protect medical confidentiality can serve as a compelling reason to 

seal court documents. See, e.g., Bauman v. Harbor View Home Owners Ass’n, 16-CV2506 MMA (JMA), 2017 WL 1378215, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 11, 2017) (Anello, J.); 

Chaker v. Adams, 10-CV-2599 GPC (BGS), 2014 WL 4063124, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 

15, 2014) (Curiel, J.). 

Plaintiff seeks to seal the expert report prepared by Dr. Colin Koransky, a licensed 

clinical psychologist he has engaged in connection with this case. (Sealed Lodged 

Proposed Documents [Doc. 106]; Koransky CV [Doc. 104-5, Exh. A].) Dr. Koransky is a 

medical professional, and his findings and impressions pertaining to Plaintiff’s health are 

confidential. (Sealed Lodged Proposed Documents [Doc. 106].) Redaction could not 

mitigate the potential for disclosure. 

The application will be granted. 

//

//

//

Case 3:16-cv-01986-W-WVG Document 113 Filed 07/23/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4

16-CV-1986 W (WVG)

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

IV. CONCLUSION & ORDER

Plaintiff’s ex parte application to file under seal is GRANTED. [Doc. 105.]

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 23, 2018

Case 3:16-cv-01986-W-WVG Document 113 Filed 07/23/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4