Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01185/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01185-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 751
Nature of Suit: Labor - Family and Medical Leave Act
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal - Employment Discrimination

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

TINA CANUPP,

Plaintiff,

v.

CHILDREN’S RECEIVING HOME OF 

SACRAMENTO; and DOES 1 to 25, 

inclusive,

Defendant.

CIV. NO. 2:14-1185 WBS EFB

ORDER RE: REQUEST TO SEAL 

DOCUMENTS

----oo0oo----

Plaintiff Tina Canupp brought this action against 

defendant Children’s Receiving Home of Sacramento (“CRH”) 

alleging, among other things, claims of disability 

discrimination, failure to accommodate, failure to engage in the 

interactive process, retaliation in violation of the California 

Labor Code, and wrongful termination in violation of public 

policy. (Docket No. 2.) On February 29, 2016, defendant moved 

for summary judgment and included as exhibits various medical and 

Case 2:14-cv-01185-WBS-EFB Document 34 Filed 03/03/16 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

27

28

2

employment records pertaining to plaintiff. (Docket Nos. 25-26.) 

Presently before the court is defendant’s request to seal the 

following records that were submitted in support of its motion 

for summary judgment: (1) plaintiff’s medical records, and (2) an 

employment record regarding an investigation into allegations of 

misconduct toward youth by a non-party former CRH employee, which 

refers to a former youth client involved in the allegations.

A party seeking to seal a judicial record bears the 

burden of overcoming a strong presumption in favor of public 

access. Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 

1178 (9th Cir. 2006). “[T]he strong presumption of access to 

judicial records applies fully to dispositive pleadings, 

including motions for summary judgment and related attachments

. . . because the resolution of a dispute on the merits, whether 

by trial or summary judgment, is at the heart of the interest in 

ensuring the ‘public’s understanding of the judicial process and 

of significant public events.’” Id. at 1179 (citation omitted). 

The requesting party must “articulate compelling 

reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the 

general history of access and the public policies favoring 

disclosure, such as the public interest in understanding the 

judicial process.” Id. at 1178-79 (citation omitted). In ruling 

on a motion to seal, notwithstanding the other party’s failure to 

object, the court must balance the competing interests of the 

public and the party seeking to keep the records secret. Id. at 

1179.

The court has reviewed plaintiff’s medical records that

defendant requests to seal and finds no compelling reason to 

Case 2:14-cv-01185-WBS-EFB Document 34 Filed 03/03/16 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

27

28

3

shield them from public scrutiny. It appears from the request 

itself that plaintiff has waived any privilege that may have 

existed in her medical records by bringing this action, and it 

defendant has failed to demonstrate a just reason to keep the 

public from seeing them. 

Defendant’s only justification for sealing plaintiff’s 

medical records is that they contain allegedly confidential 

information and are subject to a stipulated protective order 

signed by the assigned magistrate judge. (See Docket No. 12.) 

This court has previously pointed out that a confidentiality 

agreement between the parties does not per se constitute a 

compelling reason to seal documents outweighing the interests of 

public disclosure and access. See Oct. 8, 2014 Order at 2, 

Starbucks Corp. v. Amcor Packaging Distrib., Civ. No. 2:13-1754; 

Sept. 3, 2015 Order at 3, Foster Poultry Farms, Inc. v. Certain 

Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London, Civ. No. 1:14-953; Sept. 18, 

2015 Order at 2, Rosales v. City of Chico, Civ. No. 2:14-2152. 

The fact that the assigned magistrate judge signed the stipulated 

protective order does not change this principle.

Beyond the stipulated protective order, defendant

asserts that there is “good cause” to seal plaintiff’s medical 

records, but offers no further guidance as to why there is “good 

cause.” These boilerplate concerns do not outweigh the history 

of access and public policies favoring disclosure to the public 

and the media. Defendant also acknowledges that plaintiff’s 

medical condition and medical history are at issue in this case. 

Once a matter is brought to the court for resolution, it is a 

public matter. M.P. ex rel. Provins v. Lowe’s Cos., Civ. No. 

Case 2:14-cv-01185-WBS-EFB Document 34 Filed 03/03/16 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

27

28

4

2:11-1985 GEB CKD, 2012 WL 1574801, at *2 (E.D. Cal. May 3, 

2012). The court must therefore deny defendant’s request to seal 

plaintiff’s medical records.

However, the court finds that the requisite showing has 

been made to seal the one-page employment record pertaining to an 

investigation into allegations of misconduct toward youth by a 

former CRH employee, which refers to a former youth client 

involved in the allegations. (Oceguera Decl. Ex. 38 (Docket No. 

26-2).) The court will grant defendant’s request to seal this 

record. Cf. E.D. Cal. L.R. 140(a) (requiring redaction of a 

minor’s name in a civil action when the specific identity of the 

minor is not necessary to the action).

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendant’s request to 

seal documents be, and the same hereby is:

(1) DENIED IN PART as to plaintiff’s medical records; 

and

(2) GRANTED IN PART as to the employment record 

pertaining to an investigation into allegations of misconduct 

toward youth by a former CRH employee.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Exhibit 38 to defendant’s 

motion for summary judgment be filed under seal. The remainder 

of defendant’s exhibits submitted in support of its motion for 

summary judgment, (Docket Nos. 26-2 to 26-4), and all other 

written materials in this action shall not be under seal.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 2, 2016

Case 2:14-cv-01185-WBS-EFB Document 34 Filed 03/03/16 Page 4 of 4