Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-00228/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-00228-65/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights

---

1

5:13-cv-00228-RMW

ORDER REGARDING AMENDED MOTION TO SEAL

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

ADIL HIRAMANEK, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

L. MICHAEL CLARK, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 5:13-cv-00228-RMW 

ORDER REGARDING AMENDED 

MOTION TO SEAL

Re: Dkt. No. 574

Before the court is an administrative motion to file under seal certain documents submitted

in connection with plaintiffs’ supplemental briefing and motion for reconsideration of this court’s 

summary judgment order on their disability discrimination claims. Dkt No. 574. Because the 

court’s Electronic Case Filing system does not allow pro se litigants to file documents 

electronically under seal, plaintiffs filed the documents that plaintiffs now wish to seal in the 

public docket of this case before filing a motion to seal. (See table below).

“Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records 

and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City & County of 

Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 

U.S. 589, 597 & n. 7 (1978)). Accordingly, when considering a sealing request, “a ‘strong 

presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.” Id. (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. 

Case 3:13-cv-00228-JD Document 653 Filed 07/05/16 Page 1 of 5
2

5:13-cv-00228-RMW

ORDER REGARDING AMENDED MOTION TO SEAL

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

Northern District of California

Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). Parties seeking to seal judicial records relating to 

dispositive motions bear the burden of overcoming the presumption with “compelling reasons” 

that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure. Id. at 1178-

79.

A protective order sealing the documents during discovery may reflect the court’s previous 

determination that good cause exists to keep the documents sealed, see Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 

1179-80, but a blanket protective order that allows the parties to designate confidential documents 

does not provide sufficient judicial scrutiny to determine whether each particular document should 

remain sealed. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(A) (“Reference to a stipulation or protective order that 

allows a party to designate certain documents as confidential is not sufficient to establish that a 

document, or portions thereof, are sealable.”).

In addition to making particularized showings of good cause, parties moving to seal 

documents must comply with the procedures established by Civ. L.R. 79-5. Pursuant to Civ. L.R. 

79-5(b), a sealing order is appropriate only upon a request that establishes the document is 

“sealable,” or “privileged or protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under 

the law.” “The request must be narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material, and 

must conform with Civil L.R. 79-5(d).” Civ. L.R. 79-5(b). “Within 4 days of the filing of the 

Administrative Motion to File Under Seal, the Designating Party must file a declaration as 

required by subsection 79-5(d)(1)(A) establishing that all of the designated material is sealable.” 

Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).

Plaintiffs’ primary concern over the documents in question seems to be that they may 

reveal plaintiffs’ medical conditions. Courts have recognized confidentiality in patients’ medical 

files. See, e.g., Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1186. On the other hand, a party’s voluntary disclosure of 

otherwise confidential information can constitute grounds for denying a motion to seal. With these 

standards in mind, the courts rules on the instant motion as follows.

It appears that the instant motion to seal covers specific pages of multi-page documents in 

PDF format that plaintiffs already placed in the public docket for this case. Plaintiffs do not assert 

Case 3:13-cv-00228-JD Document 653 Filed 07/05/16 Page 2 of 5
3

5:13-cv-00228-RMW

ORDER REGARDING AMENDED MOTION TO SEAL

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

Northern District of California

that the remaining pages of the PDF documents at issue are confidential. The court’s Electronic 

Case Filing system does not allow the court to restrict access to specific pages of a PDF document. 

Access may only be restricted, if at all, for a particular docket entry (e.g. 533-3) in its entirety. In 

connection with any future motions to seal, if plaintiffs wish to shield particular pages of their 

submissions from public view, they should e-file versions of the documents with redactions 

applied to particular pages in the public docket.

1

See Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(C). Plaintiffs may then 

submit the versions containing confidential pages to the court using another mechanism.

While the court could deny the instant motion for failure to provide redacted copies, the 

court finds that at least some of the pages that plaintiffs wish to seal warrant confidential 

treatment. Given the technical limitations of ECF, for any docket entries listed below for which a 

motion to seal has been “conditionally granted,” the court will instruct the clerk to restrict 

electronic access only to participants in this case. Within 14 days of the date of this order, 

plaintiffs shall re-file redacted versions of each document associated with each docket entry

for which the motion to seal has been conditionally granted. For example, because the court is 

conditionally granting plaintiffs’ motion to seal as to ECF pages 33-34, 36-37, and 46 of the 

document filed at Dkt. No. 559-5, plaintiffs shall electronically file a version of the entire 

document at Dkt. No. 559-5 with redactions applied to pages 33-34, 36-37, and 46. The table 

below contains the court’s rulings on particular documents.

Motion 

to Seal

Document to be Sealed Ruling Reason/Explanation

574 2/25/15 Adil 

Hiramanek’s Request For 

Accommodations By 

Persons With Disabilities 

And Response (553-3 at 

ECF p. 19)

CONDITIONALLY 

GRANTED

References medical conditions. 

The court is not convinced at this 

time that the public’s right of 

access to the underlying 

documents outweighs plaintiffs’ 

interest in maintaining privacy.

 

1

It does not appear that plaintiffs have submitted versions of these documents with the 

purportedly confidential pages redacted; if plaintiffs have submitted redacted versions, plaintiffs’ 

motion does not indicate where to find the redacted versions.

Case 3:13-cv-00228-JD Document 653 Filed 07/05/16 Page 3 of 5
4

5:13-cv-00228-RMW

ORDER REGARDING AMENDED MOTION TO SEAL

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

Northern District of California

574 4/23/2015 ADA response 

of Pam Juarez on behalf 

of Georgia Ku to Adil 

Hiramanek (553-3 at ECF 

pp. 21-23)

CONDITIONALLY 

GRANTED as to ECF 

p. 23. 

DENIED as to ECF 

pp. 21-22.

ADA request form references 

medical conditions. The court is 

not convinced at this time that the 

public’s right of access to the 

underlying documents outweighs 

plaintiffs’ interest in maintaining 

privacy.

Correspondence does not 

reference medical conditions or 

any other information that could 

be used to “gratify private spite, 

promote public scandal, circulate 

libelous statements, or release 

trade secrets.”2

574 7/12/2015 Adil 

Hiramanek’s Request For 

Accommodations By 

Persons With Disabilities 

And Response (553-3 at 

ECF pp. 25-28)

CONDITIONALLY 

GRANTED

References medical conditions. 

The court is not convinced at this 

time that the public’s right of 

access to the underlying 

documents outweighs plaintiffs’ 

interest in maintaining privacy.

574 8/5/2015 ADA response 

of Georgia Ku to Adil 

Hiramanek (553-3 at ECF 

p. 30)

DENIED Correspondence does not 

reference medical conditions or 

any other information that could 

be used to “gratify private spite, 

promote public scandal, circulate 

libelous statements, or release 

trade secrets.”

574 11/12/2013 Plaintiff Adil 

Hiramanek’s email to 

Georgia Ku (559-4 at 

ECF p. 54)

DENIED Correspondence does not 

reference medical conditions or 

any other information that could 

be used to “gratify private spite, 

promote public scandal, circulate 

libelous statements, or release 

trade secrets.”

574 4/23/2015 ADA response 

of Georgia Ku to Adil 

Hiramanek (559-4 at ECF 

pp. 160-61)

DENIED Correspondence does not 

reference medical conditions or 

any other information that could 

be used to “gratify private spite, 

promote public scandal, circulate 

libelous statements, or release 

trade secrets.”

 

2 Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179.

Case 3:13-cv-00228-JD Document 653 Filed 07/05/16 Page 4 of 5
5

5:13-cv-00228-RMW

ORDER REGARDING AMENDED MOTION TO SEAL

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

Northern District of California

574 7/12/2015 Adil 

Hiramanek’s Request For 

Accommodations By 

Persons With Disabilities 

And Response (559-5 at 

ECF pp. 33-34)

CONDITIONALLY 

GRANTED

References medical conditions. 

The court is not convinced at this 

time that the public’s right of 

access to the underlying 

documents outweighs plaintiffs’ 

interest in maintaining privacy.

574 7/23/2015 ADA response 

of Georgia Ku to Adil 

Hiramanek (559-5 at ECF 

pp. 36-37)

CONDITIONALLY 

GRANTED

References medical advice. The 

court is not convinced at this time 

that the public’s right of access to 

the underlying documents 

outweighs plaintiffs’ interest in 

maintaining privacy.

574 11/12/2015 Adil 

Hiramanek’s Request For 

Accommodations By 

Persons With Disabilities 

And Response (559-5 at 

ECF p. 46)

CONDITIONALLY 

GRANTED

References medical conditions. 

The court is not convinced at this 

time that the public’s right of 

access to the underlying 

documents outweighs plaintiffs’ 

interest in maintaining privacy.

The court notes that the U.S. District Court is a public forum, and, to the extent that this 

order allows documents to be filed under seal, this order does not decide whether the documents 

that are the subject of the instant motion can be used in open court in any future proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 5, 2016

______________________________________

Ronald M. Whyte

United States District Judge

Case 3:13-cv-00228-JD Document 653 Filed 07/05/16 Page 5 of 5