Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-01429/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-01429-20/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 535
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus - Death Penalty
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Ptn for Writ of H/C - Stay of Execution

---

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

JOHN MICHEAL BEAMES,

Petitioner,

v.

RON DAVIS, Acting Warden of San Quentin 

State Prison,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:10-cv-01429 AWI-SAB

DEATH PENALTY CASE

ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED 

REQUEST TO SEAL DOCUMENTS AND 

FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

(ECF No. 119) 

Before the Court is Petitioner’s May 4, 2015 request to file the following documents 

under seal and subject to protective order: (1) Petitioner’s unopposed request to seal documents 

and for protective order, totaling three (3) pages, (2) Petitioner’s sealed allegations and exhibits 

in support of joint statement re: April 9, 2015 scheduling order, totaling fifteen (15) pages, and 

(3) a [proposed] order granting request to seal documents and protective order, totaling two (2)

pages. 

Petitioner states that these documents contain and discuss the confidential medical 

information of a non-party, such that the documents should be filed under seal and protected 

from disclosure. 

Petitioner represents that Respondent has been served with copies of the above

documents and has no objection to Petitioner’s request that the documents be filed under seal and

Case 1:10-cv-01429-DAD Document 120 Filed 05/07/15 Page 1 of 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

2

subject to protective order. 

The presumption of public access to judicial records may be overcome by showing a 

“real and substantial” privacy interest. Maury v. Warden, E.D. Cal. Case No. CIV S-12-1043 

WBS DAD, ECF No. 22 at 1:23-2:1, citing Eugene S. v. Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield of New 

Jersey, 663 F.3d 1124, 1135-36 (10th Cir. 2011). The Supreme Court has recognized a 

fundamental privacy right in non-disclosure of personal medical information. Coons v. Lew, 762 

F.3d 891, 899 (9th Cir. 2014), citing Whalen v. Roe, 429 U.S. 589, 599 (1977); see e.g., Health 

Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, Pub. L. 104–191, 110 Stat. 1936 (codified 

as amended in scattered sections of 42 U.S.C.) (45 C.F.R. § 164.512) (protected health 

information thereunder entitled to confidential treatment); accord, Webb v. Smart Document 

Solutions, LLC, 499 F.3d 1078, 1083-84 (9th Cir. 2007). 

Documents containing confidential information may be filed under seal. Fed. R. Civ. P. 

5.2, 26; Eastern District of California Local Rule 141. Medical records are plainly confidential. 

Eugene S., 663 F.3d at 1135-36 (sealing documents that included “the name of, and/or personal 

and private medical information.”). 

A protective order forbidding disclosure of information may issue to protect a party or 

person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense. Fed. R. Civ.

P. 26. The moving party must show a particular need for protection and a balancing of the public 

and private interests. Id.; Eastern District of California Local Rule 141.1; see In re Roman 

Catholic Archbishop of Portland in Oregon, 661 F.3d 417, 424 (9th Cir. 2011); Glenmede Trust 

Co. v. Thompson, 56 F.3d 476, 483 (3d Cir. 1995). Where the balance weighs in favor of 

protection, the court considers whether redaction will allow disclosure. Foltz v. State Farm Mut. 

Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1136-37 (9th Cir. 2003). Confidential information of non-parties 

may be the subject of a protective order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1); Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1130. 

In this case, the Court finds that the separately submitted documents contain confidential 

private medical information of a non-party. The private interests of the non-party outweigh any 

public interest in disclosure. There is good cause to issue sealing and protective orders. 

Respondent does not seek redaction and such is not appropriate. 

Case 1:10-cv-01429-DAD Document 120 Filed 05/07/15 Page 2 of 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

3

Accordingly, for the reasons stated, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner’s 

unopposed request for a sealing and protective order (ECF No. 119) is GRANTED as follows: 

1. The Clerk of the Court is directed to file under seal, (1) Petitioner’s 

unopposed request to seal documents and for protective order, totaling 

three (3) pages, (2) Petitioner’s sealed allegations and exhibits in support 

of joint statement re: April 9, 2015 scheduling order, totaling fifteen (15)

pages, and (3) a [proposed] order granting request to seal documents and 

protective order, totaling two (2) pages, 

2. The above documents filed under seal and the information therein 

constitute confidential information which shall not be disclosed, in whole

or part, to any person other than the Court and Court staff and individually 

named counsel for the parties for their use solely in connection with 

litigation of the habeas petition pending before this Court, 

3. No publicly filed document shall include the above documents and/or the 

information therein unless authorized by the Court to be filed under seal, 

and 

4. All provisions of this order shall continue to be binding after the 

conclusion of this habeas corpus proceeding and specifically shall apply in 

the event of a retrial of all or any portion of Petitioner’s criminal case, 

except that either party maintains the right to request modification or 

vacation of this order upon entry of final judgment.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 7, 2015 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:10-cv-01429-DAD Document 120 Filed 05/07/15 Page 3 of 3