Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-00720/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-00720-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Carlen Boudreaux
Plaintiff
J.B. Hunt Transportation, 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 

CARLEN BOUDREAUX, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

J.B. HUNT TRANSPORTATION, INC.; 

and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, 

Defendant. 

No. 2:14-cv-00720-KJM-KJN 

ORDER 

 This matter is before the court on defendant J.B. Hunt Transport, Inc.’s request to 

seal plaintiff’s medical records (Exhibit D) submitted with its motion for summary judgment. 

ECF No. 11. Defendant argues the documents may be protected in their entirety by the Health 

Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA). Id. Accordingly, disclosure 

and/or dissemination of these documents on the public record would potentially violate HIPAA. 

Id. Defendant attempted to reach plaintiff to determine his position, without success. ECF No. 

11-1. In plaintiff’s opposition to summary judgment, plaintiff does not respond to the request for 

sealing. ECF No. 15. 

 The Local Rules of the Eastern District of California provide that “[d]ocuments 

may be sealed only by written order of the Court.” L.R. 141(a). A request to seal “shall set forth 

the statutory or other authority for sealing, the requested duration, the identity, by name or 

Case 2:14-cv-00720-KJM-KJN Document 16 Filed 03/19/15 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

category, of persons to be permitted access to the documents, and all other relevant information.” 

Id. 141(b). 

 There is a strong presumption in favor of public access to court records. See 

Phillips v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210 (9th Cir. 2002). However, “access to judicial 

records is not absolute.” Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 

2006). The Ninth Circuit has distinguished between the public’s interest in accessing court 

records filed in connection with nondispositive and dispositive motions. See Phillips, 307 F.3d 

1206; Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2003); Kamakana, 447 

F.3d at 1172; In re Midland Nat’l Life Ins. Co., 686 F.3d 1115, 1119 (9th Cir. 2012). Because 

defendant seeks sealing of a document submitted with a summary judgment motion, the 

“compelling reasons” standard applies: “Those who seek to maintain the secrecy of documents 

attached to dispositive motions must meet the high threshold of showing that ‘compelling 

reasons’ support secrecy.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1180. To demonstrate compelling reasons, a 

party is “required to present articulable facts identifying the interests favoring continued secrecy 

and to show that these specific interests [overcome] the presumption of access by outweighing the 

public interest in understanding the judicial process.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1181 (internal 

citations, quotation marks, and emphasis omitted). “In general, ‘compelling reasons’ sufficient to 

outweigh the public’s interest in disclosure and justify sealing court records exist when such 

‘court files might become a vehicle for improper purposes,’ such as the use of records to gratify 

private spite, promote public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets.” Id. 

at 1179 (quoting Nixon v. Warner Communs., Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 589 (1978)). 

 The court has reviewed the request and finds defendant does not show sufficient 

compelling reason for its sealing. The exhibit restates information available in defendant’s 

separate statement of undisputed facts submitted with its motion and available on the public 

docket. ECF No. 12. The exhibit comprises completed forms related to plaintiff’s work injury, a 

significant aspect of his claims; it does not consist of plaintiff’s complete medical record, or even 

individual pages from a comprehensive medical file. To seal the exhibit would effectively seal 

the entire case, as plaintiff’s work-related injury gives rise to the subject of the litigation. Cf. 

Case 2:14-cv-00720-KJM-KJN Document 16 Filed 03/19/15 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

Jones v. Colorado Cas. Ins. Co., No. CV-12-01968-PHX-JAT, 2014 WL 6801749, at *2 (D. Ariz. 

Dec. 3, 2014) (where case centered on plaintiff’s medical condition “and various medical 

examiners' opinion of it, to allow all materials containing Plaintiff's medical information to be 

filed under seal would effectively seal the entire case, and . . . infringe too extensively on the 

public right to access court records”). 

 The motion to seal the documents is DENIED. The Clerk of the Court is directed 

to file on the public docket the documents submitted by defendant in connection with its sealing 

request, as Exhibit D to the motion for summary judgment filed at ECF No. 10. 

DATED: March 18, 2015. 

Case 2:14-cv-00720-KJM-KJN Document 16 Filed 03/19/15 Page 3 of 3