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

DARRYL BURGHARDT,

Plaintiff,

v.

J. FRANZ, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 17-cv-00339-BLF 

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF

DARRYL BURGHARDT’S MOTION TO 

SEAL

Before the Court is Plaintiff Darryl Burghardt’s (“Burghardt”) administrative motion to file 

under seal portions of Burghardt’s Brief Supporting Appointment of Counsel or Guardian Under 

Rule 17(c) and Exhibit B to the Declaration of Elizabeth K. Boggs in Support of Brief Supporting 

Appointment. See ECF 25. The time has passed for Defendants to oppose the motion to seal and 

they have not filed an opposition. For the reasons stated below, the motion to seal is GRANTED.

I. LEGAL STANDARD

There is a “strong presumption in favor of access” to judicial records. Kamakana v. City & 

Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. 

Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). A party seeking to seal judicial records bears the 

burden of overcoming this presumption by articulating “compelling reasons supported by specific 

factual findings that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring 

disclosure.” Id. at 1178-79. Compelling reasons for sealing court files generally exist when such 

“‘court files might have 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. (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978)). However, 

“[t]he mere fact that the production of records may lead to a litigant’s embarrassment, 

incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will not, without more, compel the court to seal its 

records.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179. Ultimately, “[w]hat constitutes a ‘compelling reason’ is 
2

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

‘best left to the sound discretion of the trial court.’” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrslyer Grp., LLC, 

809 F.3d 1092, 1097 (9th Cir. 2016).

“Despite this strong preference for public access, [the Ninth Circuit has] carved out an 

exception,” id. at 1097, for judicial records attached to motions that are “tangentially related to the 

merits of a case,” id. at 1101. Parties moving to seal such records need only make a 

“particularized showing” under the “good cause” standard of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

26(c). Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1180 (quoting Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1138). 

In this District, parties seeking to seal judicial records must furthermore follow Civil Local 

Rule 79-5, which requires, inter alia, that a sealing request be “narrowly tailored to seek sealing 

only of sealable material.” Civil L.R. 79-5(b) (emphasis added). Where the submitting party 

seeks to file under seal a document designated confidential by another party, the burden of 

articulating compelling reasons for sealing is placed on the designating party. Id. 79-5(e). 

II. DISCUSSION

The Court has reviewed Burghardt’s sealing motion and the declaration of Elizabeth K. 

Boggs in support thereof. According to the declaration, portions of the brief supporting 

appointment of counsel or guardian under Rule 17(c) should be sealed because they contain 

Burghardt’s confidential medical and psychiatric records. See Boggs Decl. iso Motion to Seal ¶ 6, 

ECF 25-1. The highlighted portions of the brief that Burghardt requests to seal largely consist of 

references and quotations taken from his medical records that are submitted as Exhibit B to the 

declaration of Elizabeth K. Boggs in support of brief supporting appointment. See ECF 25-4 

(“Brief Supporting Appointment”), ECF 25-6 (“Exhibit B”). Therefore, Burghardt also requests to 

seal Exhibit B in its entirety because the excerpts of Burghardt’s medical records contain private 

and sensitive medical and psychiatric information regarding Burghardt’s health.

1

 

The Court finds that the “good cause” standard applies to Burghardt’s sealing motion, as 

the motion to appoint counsel or guardian under Rule 17(c) is non-dispositive and only 

 

1 Counsel for Burghardt explains that she made a request for Burghardt’s medical and psychiatric 

records to the California State Prison – Sacramento and received a voluminous box of paper 

records, of which she submits only certain relevant excerpts in Exhibit B. See Boggs Decl. iso 

Brief Supporting Appointment of Counsel or Guardian under Rule 17(c), ECF 26-1, ¶¶ 3-5. 
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

“tangentially related to the merits of [the] case.” Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1101. Parties 

moving to seal such records need only make a “particularized showing” under the “good cause” 

standard of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1180 (quoting Foltz,

331 F.3d at 1138). Burghardt has made such a showing of good cause, as the excerpts from the 

Brief Supporting Appointment and Exhibit B contain Burghardt’s confidential personal 

information, they are appropriately sealable. 

In fact, Burghardt’s motion likely satisfies the more stringent “compelling reasons” 

standard to seal as well. See, e.g., Hunt v. Cont’l Cas. Co., No. 13-CV-05966-HSG, 2015 WL 

5355398, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 14, 2015) (granting motion to seal deposition testimony of 

psychotherapist as well as handwritten notes and bills from psychotherapy sessions under 

compelling reasons standard due to the plaintiff’s “interest in preserving the privacy of her 

sensitive mental health records.”) (citing San Ramon Reg’l Med. Ctr., Inc. v. Principal Life Ins. 

Co., No. 10–cv–02258–SBA, 2011 WL 89931, at *1 n.1 (N.D.Cal. Jan. 10, 2011)). Because the

redacted excerpts from Burghardt’s Brief Supporting Appointment and Exhibit B contain 

references to Burghardt’s sensitive medical and psychiatric history, the Court finds that both good 

cause and compelling reasons exist to keep them under seal.

Moreover, Burghardt’s request is narrowly tailored to sealable material—Burghardt’s 

medical and psychiatric information—and does not extend to the legal arguments or other nonsealable information in Burghardt’s brief. Civil L.R. 79-5(b).

III. ORDER

For the foregoing reasons, the sealing motion at ECF 25 is GRANTED and the excerpts of 

Burghardt’s Motion to Appoint Counsel or Guardian Under Rule 17(c), and Exhibit B to the 

Boggs Declaration in support thereof, may be filed under seal. See ECF 26, 26-3. 

Dated: January 5, 2018

______________________________________

BETH LABSON FREEMAN

United States District Judge