Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_11-cv-01363/USCOURTS-cand-3_11-cv-01363-9/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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THOMAS A. GONDA, JR., M.D.,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

THE PERMANENTE MEDICAL GROUP, 

INC.; and THE PERMANENTE MEDICAL 

GROUP, INC. LONG TERM DISABILITY 

PLAN FOR PHYSICIANS,

 Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 13-cv-01063-SC

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 

DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS' 

MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL

Now before the Court is Defendants' motion to file under seal

a copy of the Final Separation Agreement and General Mutual Release 

of Claims (the "Release") between Plaintiff Thomas A. Gonda, Jr., 

M.D., Defendant The Permanente Medical Group, Inc., and non-party 

Kaiser Foundation Hospitals. ECF No. 64. Defendants seek to file 

the entire Release under seal, with no portion of the Release in 

the public record. Defendants also request to file under seal an 

unredacted copy of their motion for summary judgment, because it 

will cite to sealable portions of the Release. In accordance with 

Civil Local Rule 79-5(e)(4), Plaintiff has filed a declaration in 

support of Defendants' motion.

Case 3:11-cv-01363-SC Document 92 Filed 02/05/15 Page 1 of 3
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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

"A party seeking to seal a judicial record bears the burden of 

overcoming" the "strong presumption in favor of access" to court 

records. Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 

(9th Cir. 2006). The Civil Local Rules in this District reflect 

that presumption, requiring that requests to file under seal "must 

be narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable 

material . . . ." Civ. L.R. 79-5(b). 

The parties seek to seal the entire Release, but they provide 

justifications only for sealing the redacted portions, which are 

the various amounts paid pursuant to the settlement. Both parties 

have good reasons for sealing those numbers. Defendants argue that 

other plaintiffs in employment disputes with them might "use the 

confidential payment information contained in the Release as unfair 

leverage in negotiating future settlements." ECF No. 64 at 5. 

Plaintiff asserts that the Release contains "private financial and 

(by implication) medical information of Dr. Gonda." The Court 

agrees and GRANTS Defendants' motion with respect to the redacted 

dollar amounts in the Release.

However, neither party has provided a justification for 

sealing the rest of the Release. The law requires that a party 

seeking to seal a judicial record meet the "compelling reasons" 

standard. That standard requires the party to "articulate[] 

compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings." 

Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178. Perhaps recognizing their failure to 

provide the required compelling reasons, Defendants moved in the 

alternative to file a complete unredacted version of the Release 

under seal and a redacted copy in the public record. The Court 

finds that this latter approach is appropriate given the legitimate 

Case 3:11-cv-01363-SC Document 92 Filed 02/05/15 Page 2 of 3
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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

concerns the parties have with publicly revealing the dollar 

amounts involved in the settlement and the lack of compelling 

reasons for sealing the entire document.

Defendants' motion is therefore GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN 

PART. In accordance with Civil Local Rule 79-5(f)(3), Defendants 

shall file a copy of the Release with the redactions already 

identified (see ECF No. 64-4) in the public record within seven (7) 

days of the signature date of this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 31, 2014

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:11-cv-01363-SC Document 92 Filed 02/05/15 Page 3 of 3