Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-02370/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-02370-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 791
Nature of Suit: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Cause of Action: 29:1001 E.R.I.S.A.: Employee Retirement

---

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

08cv2370

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CYNTHIA SULLIVAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

DEUTSCHE BANK AMERICAS

HOLDING CORPORATION, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 08cv2370 L(POR)

ORDER GRANTING EX PARTE

MOTION TO FILE

ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD

UNDER SEAL [doc. #53]

Defendants move ex parte to file under seal the administrative record in this action. 

Having reviewed the documents sought to be sealed and defendants’ statement of cause, the

Court will grant plaintiff’s ex parte motion for the reasons set forth below.

To seal documents appended to a dispositive motion such as a motion for summary

judgment or a motion for judgment, the requesting party must meet the compelling reasons

standard. Pintos, 503 F.3d at 802; Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (“the strong presumption of

access to judicial records applies fully to dispositive pleadings, including motions for summary

judgment and related attachments). To meet the compelling reasons standard, the moving party

“must overcome a strong presumption of access by showing that compelling reasons supported

by specific factual findings outweigh the general history of access and the public policies

favoring disclosure.” Pintos, 504 F.3d at 802 (internal quotation marks, ellipsis, and citation

omitted); Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179-80. “Under the ‘compelling reasons’ standard, a district

Case 3:08-cv-02370-L-POR Document 54 Filed 09/13/10 Page 1 of 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

2 08cv2370

court must weigh relevant factors, base its decision on a compelling reason, and articulate a

factual basis for its ruling without relying on hypothesis or conjecture.” Pintos, 504 F.3d at 802

(internal quotation marks, ellipsis, footnote, and citation omitted). “Relevant factors 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.” Id. at 802 n.9 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

 The administrative record in this case involves the plaintiff’s medical conditions and the

propriety of Unum’s decision concerning plaintiff’s claim for further disability benefits. 

Plaintiff’s medical records are entitled to remain private and not subject to public access. United

States v. Comprehensive Drug Testing, Inc., 513 F.3d 1085, 1137 (9th Cir. 2008); see also

Ferguson v. City of Charleston, 532 U.S. 67, 78 (2001)(individuals enjoy a reasonable

expectation of privacy in medical test results and that “the results of those tests will not be

shared with nonmedical personnel without [the patient's] consent.”)

Good cause appearing, defendants’ ex parte motion to file administrative record under

seal is GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: September 13, 2010

M. James Lorenz

United States District Court Judge

COPY TO: 

HON. LOUISA S. PORTER

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ALL PARTIES/COUNSEL

Case 3:08-cv-02370-L-POR Document 54 Filed 09/13/10 Page 2 of 2