Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-02591/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-02591-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

AREZOU MANSOURIAN, LAUREN MANCUSO,

NANCY NIEN-LI CHIANG, and

CHRISTINE WING-SI NG, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

BOARD OF REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY

OF CALIFORNIA AT DAVIS, et al.,

Defendants.

CIV S-03-2591 FCD PAN 

ORDER 

— —

On December 28, 2005, the parties filed a stipulation and

lodged a proposed protective order that would permit defendants

to file under seal a motion to compel compliance with a subpoena

for the medical records of plaintiff Nancy Nien-Li Chiang. 

For the reasons set forth below, the requested protective

order is denied. 

////

Case 2:03-cv-02591-KJM-EFB Document 73 Filed 01/05/06 Page 1 of 4
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

2

There is no public interest in documents exchanged

between the parties in pretrial discovery that are not filed with

the court. Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20, 33

(1984)(“[m]uch of the information that surfaces during pretrial

discovery may be unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the

underlying cause of action”). Thus, the parties may do as they 

agree among themselves without permission or approval of the

court regarding classification of such documents as confidential.

The public right of access surfaces, however, when

parties seek to seal documents filed in conjunction with a

discovery motion and ripens when documents are filed in

conjunction with a dispositive motion or at trial. 

In this circuit, the court starts with a strong

presumption in favor of access to court records in civil cases. 

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

Cir. 2003)(citing Hagestad v. Tragesser, 49 F.3d 1430, 1434 (9th

Cir. 1995)). 

When parties make a discovery motion that requires

consideration of documents, a public interest in understanding

the proceedings arises and must be balanced against the interests

of the parties in avoiding the disclosure of embarrassing

information, libel, infringement of trade secrets and the like. 

Phillips v. General Motors, 307 F.3d 1206, 1212 (9th Cir. 2002). 

If a court finds specific harm will result from public disclosure

of information, then it balances the public and private interests

to decide whether a protective order is necessary. Phillips, 307

Case 2:03-cv-02591-KJM-EFB Document 73 Filed 01/05/06 Page 2 of 4
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

3

F.3d at 1211; Glenmede Trust Co. v. Thompson, 56 F.3d 476, 483

(3d Cir. 1995). 

When parties rely upon and file documents to support a

dispositive motion requiring a decision on the merits of a

pending dispute, the public interest in access to court records

grows stronger, see Foltz v. State Farm Mutual Automobile

Insurance Company, 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2002) (citing

Rushford v. The New Yorker Magazine, 846 F.2d 249, 252 (4th Cir.

1988)), and is at its zenith in the context of civil trial,

Hagestad, 49 F.3d 1424. 

Significant matters of public interest are presented by

this case, even at the discovery phase. The cost of public

education and the University’s discretion in spending public

funds are currently matters of substantial political debate and

scrutiny. These parties ask the court merely to accede to

plaintiff’s request her psychological records remain private

notwithstanding that plaintiff seeks monetary damages for

“emotional distress, lost self-esteem and confidence [and]

humiliation” based on her claim the University of California at

Davis violated her civil rights by terminating the women’s

wrestling program and its attendant benefits including academic

tutoring and laundry services. The public’s interest in the

University’s proper use or misuse of public funds is extremely

high and outweighs the plaintiff’s privacy interests in this

action which she and others initiated. 

////

Case 2:03-cv-02591-KJM-EFB Document 73 Filed 01/05/06 Page 3 of 4
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

4

Accordingly, the request for protective order is denied.

So ordered.

Dated: January 4, 2006. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:03-cv-02591-KJM-EFB Document 73 Filed 01/05/06 Page 4 of 4