Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 NANCY SCHAEDLER-MOORE, Case No.: 3:25-CV-3034-W-AHG 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 13 v. FILE LIMITED MEDICAL VERIFICATION UNDER SEAL 14 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,, 15 Defendant. [Doc. 22] 16 17 18 Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Non-Ex Parte Motion to File Limited Medical 19 Verification Under Seal, pursuant to CivLR 79.2, filed electronically on March 19, 2026. 20 (Mot. to Seal [Doc. 22].) Plaintiff requests the Court order sealed a declaration by 21 Schaedler-Moore and two exhibits to the publicly available motion, S1 (one page) and S2 22 (two pages) and leave the motion unsealed on the docket. (Id. at 1.) The declaration and 23 two exhibits contain private medical information of Plaintiff Schaedler-Moore. As of 24 June 25, 2026, the Government has not responded. The Government’s motion to dismiss 25 for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim, which raises a sovereign 26 immunity defense, was filed before this motion to seal and remains pending. (See 27 Doc. 18.) 28 // 1 I. LEGAL STANDARD 2 The public has a right to inspect and copy public judicial records and documents. 3 Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 567 (1978). Although the right is not 4 absolute, there is a “strong presumption in favor of access to court records.” Ctr. for 5 Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2016), cert. denied sub 6 nom. FCA U.S. LLC v. Ctr. for Auto Safety, 580 U.S. 815 (2016) (quoting Foltz v. State 7 Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). As the party moving to 8 seal a judicial record, Plaintiff “bears the burden of overcoming this strong 9 presumption[.]” Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1096. A court may seal records only 10 when it finds “a compelling reason and articulate[s] the factual basis for its ruling, 11 without relying on hypothesis or conjecture.” Id. at 1096–97 (quoting Kamakana v. City 12 & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006). “The ‘compelling reasons’ 13 standard is invoked even if the dispositive motion, or its attachments, were previously 14 filed under seal or protective order.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (citing Foltz, 331 F.3d 15 at 1136). 16 17 II. ANALYSIS 18 Plaintiff argues that compelling reasons support her request for sealing because the 19 request is narrowly tailored to her declaration and private medical information. (Mot. to 20 Seal at 3.) Plaintiff also argues that the purpose of the medical records—her experiences 21 of disability-related communication and processing limitations—may be publicly 22 available, and that she only seeks to protect the underlying private medical verifications 23 of that information. (Id.) Plaintiff also argues that her medical records should be 24 protected from public disclosure because “public filings have challenged or minimized 25 [her] disability-related limitations by pointing to the volume of her filings.” (Id.) 26 Having reviewed the moving papers, the declaration, and exhibits S1 and S2, the 27 Court concludes that Plaintiff demonstrated compelling reasons to support the sealing of 28 these narrowly tailored documents regarding her personal medical information. The 1 || Court’s conclusion rests in large part on the fact that the declaration and exhibits, filed by 2 ||a pro se litigant, do not in any way address or respond to the merits of this case or to any 3 || of Plaintiff's arguments or causes of action or Defendant’s defenses or arguments. As 4 || Plaintiff says, these exhibits are only relevant to “whether [her] communication, 5 || organization, processing speed, task-switching, and error recovery are materially 6 || impaired under extreme time pressure and threat of irreparable loss.” (/d.) Resolving 7 || that question is not before the Court at this time. For these reasons, the Court finds that 8 || Plaintiff's interests in the privacy of the minimal medical record information from her 9 || declaration and exhibits S1 and S2 outweigh the public’s interest in access to the Court’s 10 records. 11 12 Il. CONCLUSION AND ORDER 13 For the reasons stated above, the Court GRANTS Schaedler-Moore’s renewed 14 administrative motion to file limited medical verification under seal. (Doc. 22.) The 15 || Court ORDERS the Clerk of Court to seal Schaedler-Moore’s declaration and exhibits 16 ||S1 and S2, attached to the motion. This Order shall not be sealed. 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 ||Dated: June 25, 2026 \ 19 [pe Lor 20 Hn. 1 omas J. Whelan 1 United States District Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28