Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-02599/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-02599-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983cv Civil Rights Act - Civil Action for Deprivation of Rights

---

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

NICOLE CHAKER, an individual,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 10cv2599-GPC(BGS)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART

AND DENYING IN PART

PLAINTIFF’S APPLICATION

TO FILE MOTION TO

APPOINT COUNSEL AND

REQUEST FOR STAY UNDER

SEAL

vs.

ROBERT ADAMS, an individual;

Officer HERZIG, an individual; CITY

OF SAN DIEGO, a government entity;

and DOES 1-50, inclusive

Defendants.

Plaintiff Nicole Chaker, proceeding pro se, filed an application to file the entire

motion for stay and appoint counsel under seal. She argues that her medical condition

and diagnosis presented in the pleadings and the attached letter from her doctorshould

be filed under seal. She also seeks to file under seal the application to file motion for

stay and appoint counsel under seal. 

There is a presumptive right of public access to court records based upon the

common law and the first amendment. See Nixon v. Warner Comm., Inc., 435 U.S.

589, 597 (1978); Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. General Motors Corp., 307 F.3d

1206, 1212-13 (9th Cir. 2002). Nonetheless, access may be denied to protectsensitive

confidential information. Courts are more likely to protect information covered by

- 1 - [10cv2599-GPC(BGS) ]

Case 3:10-cv-02599-GPC-BGS Document 92 Filed 01/27/15 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

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), but are not limited by items listed in protective

orders. See KL Group v. Case, Kay, & Lynch, 829 F.2d 909, 917-19 (9th Cir. 1987)

(letter to client from attorney); Kalinauskas v. Wong, 151 F.R.D. 363, 365-67 (D. Nev.

1993) (confidential settlement agreement). In the context of Rule 26(c), “[a] party

asserting good cause bearsthe burden, for each particular document itseeks to protect,

ofshowing thatspecific prejudice or harm will result if no protective order is granted.”

Folz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2003). 

Redactions, as opposed to filing entire documents under seal, “have the virtue of being

limited and clear.” Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1183 (9th

Cir. 2006). 

Here, Plaintiff seeks to file her application to file motion for stay and appoint

counsel under seal as well as the entire motion to appoint counsel and request for stay

without showing good cause why the entire motion and application to file under seal

should be protected. Plaintiff seeks to protect portions of the pleading where she

discloses her medical condition and a letter signed by her physician which is attached

to her motion to appoint counsel. The Court findsthat the physician’s letter issensitive

and confidential information as well as the medical condition disclosed in her motion. 

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s application to file under seal her

physician’s letter attached to her motion to appoint counsel and the paragraph in her

pleading that discloses her medical condition. Thus, the Court REDACTS one

paragraph from page two of her motion where she reveals her medical condition. 

However, the DENIES Plaintiff’s application to file under seal the application to file

under seal and the remaining portions of her motion to appoint counsel and request for

stay. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 27, 2015

HON. GONZALO P. CURIEL

United States District Judge

- 2 - [10cv2599-GPC(BGS) ]

Case 3:10-cv-02599-GPC-BGS Document 92 Filed 01/27/15 Page 2 of 2