Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Case No.: 3:24-CV-978-W-AHG 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING RENEWED 13 v. ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE LIMITED MEDICAL 14 NANCY SCHAEDLER-MOORE, et al.,, VERIFICATION UNDER SEAL 15 Defendants. 16 [Doc. 202] 17 18 Before the Court is the Renewed Administrative Motion to File Limited Medical 19 Verification Under Seal, pursuant to CivLR 79.2, which was submitted to the Clerk of 20 Court and stamped as received on April 2, 2026. (Mot. to Seal [Doc. 202].) Defendant 21 Nancy Schaedler-Moore requests the Court order sealed a declaration by Schaedler- 22 Moore and two exhibits to the publicly available motion, S1 (one page) and S2 (two 23 pages) and leave the administrative motion to seal unsealed on the docket. No 24 declaration was lodged with this motion.1 The two exhibits attached to the motion 25 contain limited amounts of Defendant’s private medical information and do not address 26 27 1 No declaration was submitted and stamped received with the motion and Exhibits. For that 28 1 other issues. As Defendant argues in her renewed motion, she does not seek 2 reconsideration or merits review but rather “only to protect medical privacy while 3 allowing the Court to have an accurate record concerning disability-related 4 communication and processing limitations and the technical filing barriers that affected 5 prior attempts to lodge limited medical verification.” (Mot. to Seal at 1.)2 6 7 I. LEGAL STANDARD 8 The public has a right to inspect and copy public judicial records and documents. 9 Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 567 (1978). Although the right is not 10 absolute, there is a “strong presumption in favor of access to court records.” Ctr. for 11 Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2016), cert. denied sub 12 nom. FCA U.S. LLC v. Ctr. for Auto Safety, 580 U.S. 815 (2016) (quoting Foltz v. State 13 Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). As the party moving to 14 seal a judicial record, Defendant “bears the burden of overcoming this strong 15 presumption[.]” Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1096. A court may seal records only 16 when it finds “a compelling reason and articulate[s] the factual basis for its ruling, 17 without relying on hypothesis or conjecture.” Id. at 1096–97 (quoting Kamakana v. City 18 & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006). “The ‘compelling reasons’ 19 standard is invoked even if the dispositive motion, or its attachments, were previously 20 filed under seal or protective order.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (citing Foltz, 331 F.3d 21 at 1136). 22 // 23 24 25 2 For accuracy of the judicial record only, the Court notes that Defendant’s motion contains a Proof of Service statement that appears to be inaccurate. (Mot. to Seal at 4.) Defendant states she 26 electronically filed the motion on March 19, 2026, through CM/ECF and provided notice by that means. The docket does not show that this motion was electronically filed on that date. Defendant’s motion 27 explains her prior efforts to file the motion. The Court determines that this likely inadvertent error about proof of service is moot because the Court caused the motion to be electronically filed on the docket, 28 1 II. ANALYSIS 2 Defendant argues that compelling reasons support her request for sealing because 3 the request is narrowly tailored to her sensitive medical records only and only those 4 relevant to “document [her] functional limitations relevant to access, communication, and 5 filing burdens.” (Mot. to Seal at 3.) Defendant also argues that the medical records are 6 not offered to prove or disprove the issues of foreclosure, the validity of any lien, or the 7 merits of any claim or defense. (Id.) Next Defendant argues that her medical records 8 should be protected from public disclosure because “public filings have challenged or 9 minimized [her] disability-related limitations by pointing to the volume of her filings.” 10 (Id.) Finally, Defendant argues she previously attempted to request that sealed and 11 relevant medical information be filed in this case, but that “technical problems prevented 12 completion of the sealed-lodgment workflow even though Movant attempted to comply.” 13 (Id.) Defendant argues that the instant motion, if granted, would “cure that problem 14 using the Court’s prescribed public-motion plus sealed-lodgment process.” (Id.) 15 Having reviewed the moving papers and exhibits S1 and S2, the Court concludes 16 that Defendant demonstrated compelling reasons to support the sealing of these narrowly 17 tailored documents regarding her personal medical information and records. The Court’s 18 conclusion rests in large part on the fact that the exhibits, filed by a pro se litigant, do not 19 in any way address or respond to the merits of this case or to any of Plaintiff’s arguments 20 or causes of action or Defendant’s defenses or substantive arguments. As Defendant 21 says, these exhibits are only relevant to “whether [her] communication, organization, 22 processing speed, task-switching, and error recovery are materially impaired under 23 extreme time pressure and threat of irreparable loss.” (Id.) Resolving that question is not 24 before the Court at this time. For these reasons, the Court finds that Defendant’s interests 25 in the privacy of the minimal medical record information from S1 and S2 outweigh the 26 public’s interest in access to the Court’s records. 27 // 28 // I Hl. CONCLUSION AND ORDER 2 For the reasons stated above, the Court GRANTS Schaedler-Moore’s renewed 3 || administrative motion to file limited medical verification under seal. [Doc. 202.] The 4 || Court ORDERS the Clerk of Court to seal S1 and S2, the exhibits attached to the motion. 5 || Defendant’s motion [Doc. 202] remains publicly available. This Order shall not be 6 || sealed. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 || Dated: June 25, 2026 \ ? [pe InLor 10 Hn. 7 omas J. Whelan 11 United States District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28