Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01908/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01908-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Lavon Ramsey
Plaintiff
Siskiyou Hospital, Inc.
Defendant

Document Text:

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 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

LAVON RAMSEY, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

FAIRCHILD MEDICAL CENTER, 

SISKIYOU HOSPITAL, INC., and DOES 

1 through 10, inclusive, 

Defendants. 

No. 2:14-CV-01908-KJM-CMK 

ORDER 

On December 4, 2015, the parties filed a stipulation to replace exhibit 5 to the 

declaration of Andrea L. Fellion in support of defendant’s motion for summary judgment, and in 

the alternative, summary adjudication. ECF No. 32. In the alternative, the parties’ stipulation 

requests the court seal exhibit 5 on the docket and allow the parties to file a redacted version of 

the exhibit. Id. 

I. BACKGROUND 

Plaintiff Lavon Ramsey filed a complaint against Fairchild Medical Center on 

August 14, 2014, alleging age discrimination in violation of 29 U.S.C. § 621, et seq. and Cal. 

Gov’t Code § 12900, et seq. ECF No. 1. After some discovery, defendant Siskiyou Hospital 

(“Siskiyou”) filed a motion for summary judgment. ECF No. 21. In support of the motion for 

Case 2:14-cv-01908-KJM-CMK Document 44 Filed 01/25/16 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

summary judgment, Siskiyou filed a declaration from Andrea Fellion. ECF No. 25. Attached to 

the declaration was exhibit 5, which was the plaintiff’s response to defendant’s request for 

admission. ECF No. 25-5. Defendant inadvertently submitted exhibit 5 without redaction. See

ECF No. 32. As a result, the parties agree exhibit 5 should be sealed, with defendant’s filing of a 

minimally redacted version, redacting only the name of a person referenced in the exhibit and 

replacing it with “John Doe.” Id. 

II. DISCUSSION 

The common-law “right to inspect and copy judicial records is not absolute.” 

Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978). A litigant may request court records 

be sealed or redacted. See id. (listing traditional examples). In the Ninth Circuit, courts faced 

with requests to seal or redact begin “with a strong presumption favor of access to court records.” 

Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003). Ordinarily, the 

party seeking to seal or redact a document “bears the burden of overcoming this strong 

presumption” by “articulating 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.” Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 

447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1135 and Hagestad v. Tragesser, 

49 F.3d 1430, 1434 (9th Cir. 1995)) (quotation marks and alterations omitted). 

Here, the parties ask the court to seal information connected to a person’s medical 

records. The public interest in disclosure of a person’s medical records is outweighed by the 

person’s privacy interests. See San Ramon Reg’l Med. Ctr., Inc. v. Principal Life Ins. Co., No. 10-

02258, 2011 WL 89931, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 10, 2011) (sua sponte sealing confidential medical 

records presented in the context of a motion to dismiss). The request to seal exhibit 5 is granted. 

III. CONCLUSION 

The request to seal exhibit 5 is GRANTED. The Clerk of the Court is directed to 

seal the exhibit. The request to file a redacted version of exhibit 5 is GRANTED; a redacted 

///// 

///// 

Case 2:14-cv-01908-KJM-CMK Document 44 Filed 01/25/16 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

version of the exhibit shall be filed within five days. 

This order resolves ECF No. 32. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: January 22, 2016. 

Case 2:14-cv-01908-KJM-CMK Document 44 Filed 01/25/16 Page 3 of 3