Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01320/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01320-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 540
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Mandamus and Other
Cause of Action: 28:1361 Petition for Writ of Mandamus

---

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

DAVID GARLAND ATWOOD II,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 17cv1320-LAB (WVG)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

LEAVE TO FILE REPLY UNDER

SEAL; AND

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT

PREJUDICE MOTION FOR

EXPEDITED HEARING

vs.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.,

Defendants.

Plaintiff David Garland Atwood, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed his

petition in this case. Because it was so unclear that the Court could not perform the

mandatory screening, the Court ordered him to file supplemental briefing clarifying it. 

(Docket no. 5.) He filed the required briefing (Docket no. 10) and the Court then screened

it and ordered the U.S. Marshals service to serve it. 

Atwood then submitted a duplicate of his reply, which the Court rejected for filing. 

(Docket no. 13.) Then he submitted a substantially identical document, accompanied by a

letter asking that it be filed under seal. The Court construed his letter as a motion for leave

to file the rest of document under seal, and accepted only the motion for filing. That motion

has now been filed as Docket no. 14.

Documents filed in federal courts are presumed to be public, and are not routinely

sealed. See Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006). 

- 1 - 17cv1320

Case 3:17-cv-01320-LAB-WVG Document 16 Filed 08/21/17 PageID.<pageID> 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

The document Atwood wants to file under seal is a supplement to a dispositive

pleading. While some other documents can be sealed for lesser reasons, dispositive

pleadings and documents attached to them are only sealed if the party offering them

establishes “compelling reasons” that outweigh the public’s interest in disclosure. Id. (citing

San Jose Mercury News, Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 187 F.3d 1096, 1102 (9th Cir. 1999); Foltz v.

State Farm Mutual Aut. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1136 (9th Cir. 2003)). 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. Foltz, 331 F.3d

at 1136.

Atwood asks that the document be sealed because it “contains multiple references

to [his] medical conditions and contains information protected under the [HIPAA] laws.” 

(Docket no. 14.) This does not meet the “compelling reasons” standard.

First, Atwood already filed a substantially identical document in the docket, and it has

been in the public eye for nearly a month. Sealing it now would likely be futile.

Second, HIPAA’s privacy provisions have no application here. They govern the

privacy of “protected health information” (“PHI”) when handled by certain covered entities

such as health care providers, insurance companies, and others who engage in electronic

health care transactions. It does not require courts to keep medical information confidential.

And, more importantly, HIPAA does not prevent patients from disclosing their own medical

information. In other words, HIPAA did not prevent Atwood from filing the document outlining

his health conditions, and it does not require the Court to seal that document. 

The information Atwood wishes to keep secret goes to the heart of his claims. He is

asking the Court to order the local federal probation office to accept his transfer so that he

can obtain medical care here that he cannot obtain in his home state. Without knowing what

those conditions are, the public would be prevented from understanding the judicial process

and keeping a “watchful eye” on the Court’s work. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178–79

(outlining reasons for the public’s right to access dispositive pleadings). In this particular

case, the public has an interest in knowing whether the Court’s decision is based on minor

- 2 - 17cv1320

Case 3:17-cv-01320-LAB-WVG Document 16 Filed 08/21/17 PageID.<pageID> 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

or serious medical needs, and what other facts justify either accommodating or denying

Atwood’s request. 

Because there are no good reasons, much less compelling reasons, to justify sealing

the document, Atwood’s motion is DENIED.

Atwood has also filed a motion for an expedited hearing on his petition. (Docket no.

4.) But Defendant U.S. Probation Office has not filed an answer, and Atwood has not shown

that preliminary injunctive relief is appropriate before it does. His motion to expedite is

DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. He may, however, file a motion for preliminary injunction. 

Or if Defendant fails to answer when required to do so, he can request entry of default and

then seek a default judgment against it.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 18, 2017 ___________________________________

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge 

- 3 - 17cv1320

Case 3:17-cv-01320-LAB-WVG Document 16 Filed 08/21/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3