Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DARRYL DUNSMORE, ANDREE Case No.: 20-cv-00406-AJB-DDL ANDRADE, ERNEST 12 ARCHULETA, JAMES CLARK, ORDER: 13 ANTHONY EDWARDS, REANNA LEVY, JOSUE LOPEZ, CHRISTOPHER (1) GRANTING IN PART AND 14 NORWOOD, JESSE OLIVARES, DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFFS’ 15 GUSTAVO SEPULVEDA, MICHAEL MOTION TO SEAL (Doc. No. 976); and TAYLOR, and LAURA ZOERNER, on 16 behalf of themselves and all others (2) DENYING DEFENDANTS’ 17 similarly situated,, MOTION TO SEAL (Doc. No. 986) Plaintiffs, 18 v. 19 SAN DIEGO COUNTY SHERIFF’S 20 DEPARTMENT, COUNTY OF SAN 21 DIEGO, SAN DIEGO COUNTY PROBATION DEPARTMENT, and 22 DOES 1 to 20, inclusive, 23 Defendants. 24 25 Before the Court are two motions to seal: (1) Plaintiffs’ Motion to File Documents 26 Under Seal in Support of their Motion for Preliminary Injunction (“Plaintiffs’ Preliminary 27 Injunction Motion to Seal”) (Doc. No. 976) and (2) Defendants’ Motion to File Documents 28 Under Seal in Support of their Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction 1 (“Defendants’ Motion to Seal”) (Doc. No. 986). Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1.d.1, the 2 Court finds these motions suitable for determination on the papers and without oral 3 argument. For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES 4 IN PART Plaintiffs’ Preliminary Injunction Motion to Seal (Doc. No. 976) and DENIES 5 Defendants’ Motion to Seal (Doc. No. 986). 6 I. LEGAL STANDARD 7 Courts have historically recognized a “general right to inspect and copy public 8 records and documents, including judicial records and documents.” Nixon v. Warner 9 Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978). “Unless a particular court record is one 10 ‘traditionally kept secret,’ a ‘strong presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.” 11 Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Foltz 12 v. State Farm. Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). To overcome this 13 strong presumption, a party seeking to seal a judicial record must articulate justifications 14 for sealing that outweigh the public policies favoring disclosure. See id. at 1178–79. “In 15 turn, the court must ‘conscientiously balance[] the competing interests’ of the public and 16 the party who seeks to keep certain judicial records secret.” Id. at 1179 (quoting Foltz, 331 17 F.3d at 1135). The court must consider these interests and “base its decision on a 18 compelling reason and articulate the factual basis for its ruling, without relying on 19 hypothesis or conjecture.” Id. (quoting Hagestad v. Tragesser, 49 F.3d 1430, 1434 (9th 20 Cir. 1995)) (internal quotations omitted). 21 A party seeking to seal a judicial record bears the burden of overcoming the strong 22 presumption of access. Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1135. The showing required to meet this burden 23 depends on whether the documents to be sealed relate to a motion that is “more than 24 tangentially related to the merits of the case.” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 25 809 F.3d 1092, 1102 (9th Cir. 2016). When the underlying motion is more than tangentially 26 related to the merits, the “compelling reasons” standard applies. Id. at 1096–98. When the 27 underlying motion does not meet the tangential relevance threshold, the “good cause” 28 standard applies. Id. 1 “In general, ‘compelling reasons’ sufficient to outweigh the public’s interest in 2 disclosure and justify sealing court records exist when such ‘court files might have become 3 a vehicle for improper purposes,’ such as the use of records to gratify private spite, promote 4 public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d 5 at 1179 (quoting Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598). However, “[t]he mere fact that the production of 6 records may lead to a litigant’s embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further 7 litigation will not, without more, compel the court to seal its records.” Id. (citing Foltz, 331 8 F.3d at 1136). 9 II. DISCUSSION 10 The Court has reviewed each of the parties’ motions to seal, the lodged materials, 11 and corresponding publicly filed documents. The Court addresses each motion to seal 12 below. 13 A. Plaintiffs’ Preliminary Injunction Motion to Seal (Doc. No. 976) 14 Plaintiffs seek to seal six categories of documents related to their Motion for 15 Preliminary Injunction. (Doc. No. 976 at 4.) First, Plaintiffs seek to redact specific medical 16 information in a class member declarant’s medical records. (Id. at 4–5.) Second, Plaintiffs 17 seek to seal the personal address and contact information of one of Plaintiffs’ experts. 18 (Id. at 5.) Third, Plaintiffs wish to seal the names of witnesses to a death at the Jail. (Id. at 19 5–6.) Fourth, Plaintiffs argue there are compelling reasons to seal the identifying 20 information of non-declarant class members in connection with their medical information. 21 (Id. at 6.) Fifth, Plaintiffs wish to seal the floor plan of a housing unit at the Jail. (Id. at 6– 22 7.) Sixth, Plaintiffs seek to seal certain information because Defendants designated the 23 material confidential. (Id. at 7–8.) However, Plaintiffs disagree with Defendants’ 24 confidentiality designations and ask that the Court deny those requests and order Plaintiffs 25 to refile the information with more narrowly tailored redactions. (Id.) Defendants did not 26 respond to Plaintiffs’ Motion. 27 Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction is more than tangentially related to the 28 merits of the case; therefore, the compelling reasons standard applies in determining 1 whether to grant the Motion to Seal. See Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1099–1102; see 2 also Al Otro Lado, Inc. v. McAleenan, Case No. 17-cv-02366-BAS-KSC, 2019 WL 3 6220898 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 2019) (finding motion for preliminary injunction to be more 4 than tangentially related to merits of the case); Celgard, LLC v. Targray Tech. Int’l Inc., 5 No. 19-CV-02401-VKD, 2019 WL 3841997, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 15, 2019) (same). The 6 Court addresses each category of documents in turn. 7 1. Medical Information in Exhibit B of David Thomas’s Declaration 8 Plaintiffs seek to seal two sentences of Exhibit B to the Declaration of David 9 Thomas. (Doc No. 976 at 4.) Exhibit B contains excerpts from Mr. Thomas’s Jail medical 10 records. (Id.) Plaintiffs argue compelling reasons exist to grant their request because the 11 two sentences contain confidential medical information unrelated to the issues in Plaintiffs’ 12 Preliminary Injunction Motion. (Id. at 4–5.) 13 The Court recognizes that the need to protect medical privacy has qualified as a 14 “compelling reason” for sealing records. See, e.g., San Ramon Regional Med. Ctr., Inc. v. 15 Principal Life Ins. Co., No. C 10-02258 SBA, 2011 WL 89931, at *n.1 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 10, 16 2011). However, the presumptive public right of access recognized in Kamakana requires 17 redaction only of portions that warrant sealing. See Bovier v. Bridgepoint 18 Education/Ashford Univ., Case No.: 3:17-cv-01052-GPC-JMA, 2018 WL 11411260, at *2 19 (S.D. Cal. June 27, 2018). The “compelling reasons” rule requires the parties to “narrowly 20 tailor[] their request to redact only the portions of the filings and the precise exhibits” 21 deemed confidential. See In Re Qualcomm Litigation, No. 17-cv-108-GPC-MDD, 2017 22 WL 5176922, at *2 (S.D. Cal Nov. 8, 2017). 23 The Court agrees with Plaintiffs. The proposed redaction relates to Mr. Thomas’s 24 medical conditions, diagnoses, and treatments unrelated to this litigation. Release of this 25 information to the public could potentially embarrass or injure Mr. Thomas. See Seals v. 26 Mitchell, No. CV 04-3764 NJV, 2011 WL 1233650, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 30, 2011). The 27 balance of interests strongly favors sealing this information. Additionally, Plaintiffs’ 28 request is narrowly tailored. The proposed redactions contain only confidential medical 1 information unrelated to the issues raised in Plaintiffs Motion for Preliminary Injunction. 2 The Court finds Plaintiffs have met their burden of overcoming the strong 3 presumption in favor of public access, their request is narrowly tailored, and the specific 4 medical information sought to be sealed has no bearing on this action. See, e.g., Ortiz v. 5 City & Cnty. of San Francisco, No. 18-cv-07727-HSG, 2020 WL 2793615, at *8 (N.D. 6 Cal. May 29, 2020); Cofield v. Maydole, No. 2:13-cv-02032 TLN CKD P (TEMP), 2016 7 WL 993579, at *2 n.1 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 14, 2016). Accordingly, the Court GRANTS 8 Plaintiffs’ request to seal this limited portion of Exhibit B to Mr. Thomas’s Declaration. 9 2. Plaintiffs’ Expert’s Personal Contact Information 10 Next, Plaintiffs seek to seal the personal address and phone numbers of Plaintiffs’ 11 expert Dr. Pablo Stewart, which appear in Exhibit A of the Declaration of Pablo Stewart in 12 Support of Plaintiffs’ Preliminary Injunction Motion. (Doc. No. 976 at 5.) This Court has 13 previously recognized that compelling reasons exist to seal this information “to protect the 14 individual privacy of the retained experts in this case.” (See Doc. No. 823 at 6.) Consistent 15 with this Court’s prior sealing orders (see Doc. Nos. 823 at 6; 948 at 7), the Court finds 16 compelling reasons to seal this information to protect the individual privacy of a retained 17 expert. The Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ request to redact the personal address and phone 18 numbers of Plaintiffs’ expert Dr. Pablo Stewart. 19 3. The Identities of Witnesses to the Death of Aaron Bonin 20 Third, Plaintiffs seek to seal information in records related to the death of Aaron 21 Bonin, an incarcerated person who died on October 31, 2022. (Doc. No. 976 at 5.) 22 Plaintiffs’ propose redacting the names and personal identifying information of the 23 incarcerated witnesses to the events leading up to Mr. Bonin’s death. (Id.) Plaintiffs seek 24 to redact this information to protect the privacy and safety of the witnesses. (Id. (citing Cal. 25 Penal Code § 832.10).) 26 Under California Penal Code § 832.10—which governs the disclosure and redaction 27 of records relating to investigations of deaths occurring in detention facilities—“[a]n 28 agency shall redact a record . . . [t]o preserve the anonymity of whistleblowers, 1 complainants, victims, and witnesses.” Cal. Penal Code § 832.10(c)(2)(B). The Court finds 2 this is a compelling reason to redact the names of these witnesses. Moreover, the Court 3 finds the request narrowly tailored because Plaintiffs seek to redact only names and specific 4 identifying information, such as birth dates and booking numbers. Accordingly, the Court 5 GRANTS this request to seal. 6 4. Identifying Information of Non-Declarant Class Members 7 Plaintiffs also seek to seal portions of Exhibit J to the Grunfeld Declaration that 8 discusses the medical information of class members who are not class representatives and 9 have not submitted declarations in support of the Motion for Preliminary Injunction. (Doc. 10 No. 976 at 6.) Plaintiffs state that “the individuals in Exhibit J have not submitted 11 declarations with this motion, and so therefore have not put their medical care at issue in 12 the case.” (Id.) To balance the public interest in information about medical care at the Jail, 13 Plaintiffs seek to seal only those individuals’ identifying information, while leaving 14 anonymized information about their care at the Jail available to the public. (Id.) 15 Because these individuals have not put their medical care at issue in this case, the 16 Court finds it appropriate to protect their identities. See, e.g., Bennett v. N. Am. Bancard, 17 LLC, No. 17-CV-00586-AJB-KSC, 2022 WL 17972168, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 15, 2022) 18 (“Such personal identifying information of non-parties has been held sealable by the Ninth 19 Circuit under the ‘compelling reasons’ standard.”). The information about the individuals 20 relates to their medical and mental health histories, conditions, diagnoses, and treatments. 21 Release of this information to the public could potentially embarrass or injure the 22 non-declarant class members. See Seals, 2011 WL 1233650, at *2. Moreover, balancing 23 the need for the public’s access to information regarding the individuals’ health conditions 24 unrelated to the issues at hand weighs strongly in favor of sealing. Thus, the Court 25 GRANTS the request to redact Exhibit J to the Grunfeld Declaration. 26 5. Jail Housing Unit Floor Plan 27 Plaintiffs also seek to seal Exhibit YY to the Grunfeld Declaration, which is a floor 28 plan related to Vista Detention Facility. (Doc. No. 979 at 6–7.) Consistent with this Court’s 1 prior Orders (see Doc. Nos. 283; 306), the Court finds that security concerns outweigh the 2 benefit of public disclosure. See Ortiz, 2020 WL 2793615, at *8 (granting motion to seal 3 copies of jail surveillance video from the county jail). Accordingly, the Motion to Seal the 4 Vista Detention Facility floor plan is GRANTED. 5 6. Housing Locations and Disabilities of Corey Dean and Karim Talib 6 Plaintiffs seek to redact information in Paragraphs 6 and 15 of the Grunfeld 7 Declaration. (Doc. No. 976 at 7.) The information Plaintiffs seek to seal in Paragraph 6 of 8 the Grunfeld Declaration relates to the death of Corey Dean, an incarcerated person who 9 died at Vista Detention Facility on July 13, 2025. (Id.) The information Plaintiffs seek to 10 seal in Paragraph 15 of the Grunfeld Declaration relates to the death of Karim Talib. (Id.) 11 For both Mr. Dean and Mr. Talib, the information concerns their housing locations and 12 disabilities and is derived from documents that Defendants designated as confidential. (Id.) 13 Plaintiffs move to seal this information solely because the Amended Stipulated Protective 14 Order requires that a party filing information designated by another party as confidential 15 “must seek permission of the Court to file the material under seal,” even if the party 16 disagrees that the material merits sealing. (Id.) 17 Plaintiffs disagree that the information in Paragraphs 6 and 15 merits sealing under 18 the compelling reasons standard because the information is relevant to Mr. Dean’s and Mr. 19 Talib’s deaths. (Id.) Plaintiffs argue that the Court previously held that compelling reasons 20 justify sealing information in decedents’ medical records or other Jail records only if it is 21 “unrelated to their deaths.” (Id. (citing Doc. No. 823 at 4–5).) Plaintiffs cite Magistrate 22 Judge Leshner’s confidentiality order which concluded that information related to a 23 person’s death at the Jail does not meet the lower good cause standard for confidentiality. 24 (Id. (citing Doc. No. 785 at 7).) Thus, Plaintiffs ask the Court to deny sealing of this 25 information. 26 Defendants did not file a response to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Seal and therefore they 27 have not argued that this information should remain under seal. The Court finds no 28 compelling reason for this information to remain sealed. Under California law, “any record 1 relating to an investigation conducted by the local detention facility involving a death 2 incident maintained by a local detention facility shall not be confidential and shall be made 3 available for public inspection pursuant to the California Public Records Act . . . .” Cal. 4 Penal Code § 832.10(b). Because the County releases information regarding in-custody 5 deaths, and § 832.10(b) requires the release of records pertaining to investigations of 6 in-custody deaths, the Court concludes there is no compelling reason for the proposed 7 redactions. Moreover, a protective order alone is not a basis for sealing a document. See In 8 re Ferrero Litig., No. 11-CV-205 H CAB, 2011 WL 3360443, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 3, 9 2011) (“[A] party seeking the protection of the court via a blanket protective order typically 10 does not make a ‘good cause’ showing required by Rule 26(c) with respect to any particular 11 document.”) (quoting Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1133). 12 Plaintiffs’ request to seal these paragraphs of the Grunfeld Declaration is DENIED 13 without prejudice. 14 7. Expert Discussions that Defendants Designated Confidential 15 Plaintiffs seek to seal their expert’s discussion of class member medical records that 16 Defendants produced in this case. (Doc. No. 976 at 8.) This information appears in 17 Paragraph 25 and Exhibit B of the Stewart Declaration filed in conjunction with Plaintiffs’ 18 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. (Id.) Defendants designated the underlying medical 19 records confidential. (Id.) Thus, Plaintiffs state that they must seek to seal the information 20 under the Amended Stipulated Protective Order. (Id.) However, Plaintiffs believe that 21 redacting the names and other identifying information of the class members, while leaving 22 public the anonymized information about their underlying medical care, presents a more 23 narrowly tailored approach to providing the public information about the issues in this case, 24 while protecting the medical privacy of class members. (Id.) Accordingly, Plaintiffs ask 25 that the Court deny sealing of this information and order Plaintiffs to refile the information 26 with more narrowly tailored redactions applied only to the class members’ names and other 27 identifying information. 28 1 Defendants did not file a response to this sealing request. The Court agrees with 2 Plaintiffs that the proposed redactions are overly broad and can be more narrowly tailored. 3 See In re Ferrero Litig., 2011 WL 3360443, at *2. By redacting the names and other 4 identifying information of the class members, while leaving public the anonymized 5 information about their underlying medical care, the sensitive medical information can 6 remain private while providing the public information about the issues in this case. 7 Accordingly, as to the proposed redactions to the Stewart Declaration and to Exhibit B 8 attached thereto, the Court DENIES the request without prejudice. 9 B. Defendants’ Motion to Seal (Doc. No. 986) 10 Defendants seek to seal certain medical and mental health information discussed 11 and/or attached to the declarations of J. Montgomery, O.D. and Jacob Skelly-Brown, MFT 12 filed in conjunction with Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary 13 Injunction. (Doc. No. 986 at 2.) Specifically, Defendants seek to redact portions of Dr. 14 Montgomery’s declaration which discuss “sensitive and personal information related to the 15 inmates’ medical health histories, conditions, diagnoses, and treatments.” (Id. at 3.) 16 Defendants also seek to redact the majority of a spreadsheet (Exhibit “A”) attached to the 17 declaration of MFT Skelly-Brown. (Id.) Exhibit A summarizes certain mental health 18 encounters that took place at the Jails. (Id.) Defendants state that Exhibit A contains 19 sections which describe conversations that took place between the inmates and the mental 20 health staff, as well as the outcome of such mental health checks. (Id.) Defendants argue 21 that because there was an expectation by the inmate patients that the disclosed mental 22 health information would remain private, it is appropriate for Exhibit A to be sealed. (Id.) 23 Plaintiffs did not file a response to Defendants’ Motion to Seal. 24 Just as Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction is more than tangentially related 25 to the merits of the case, so is Defendants’ Opposition. Accordingly, the compelling 26 reasons standard must be met. 27 As discussed above, courts routinely conclude that “the need to protect medical 28 privacy qualifies as a ‘compelling reason’ for sealing records.” Steven City Broomfield v. 1 Aranas, No. 17-CV-00683-MMD-WGC, 2020 WL 2549945, at *2 (D. Nev. May 19, 2020) 2 (collecting cases). But courts have also recognized that “a prisoner waives his right to 3 medical privacy by filing a lawsuit that puts his medical condition at issue.” Mays v. 4 Birkholz, No. CV 22-5524 SVW, 2022 WL 17886031, *12 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 14, 2022); 5 Wilkins v. Barber, No. 19-cv-1338 WBS, 2022 WL 252586, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 27, 2022) 6 (requiring showing of more than general privacy concerns to order sealing of 7 prisoner-plaintiff’s medical records); Hicks v. Neal, 2013 WL 633116, at *1 (N.D. Cal. 8 Feb. 20, 2013) (by suing mental health practitioners for inadequate mental health treatment, 9 prisoner-plaintiff waived any privilege and privacy rights in his medical records). 10 Defendants have not carried their burden of establishing compelling reasons for the 11 proposed redactions. The information Defendants seek to redact concerns individuals who 12 submitted declarations in support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Those 13 individuals have put their medical conditions at issue. See Mays, 2022 WL 17886031, *12. 14 And the medical and mental health information Defendants seek to redact bears directly on 15 the medical and mental health issues in this lawsuit. Moreover, upon reviewing Exhibit A, 16 the proposed redactions do not readily appear to be of a sensitive nature. 17 To the extent Defendants are requesting to seal information that is relevant, non- 18 sensitive, or contains non-medical narrative descriptions of the events at issue in this 19 lawsuit, Defendants must specifically explain why the Court should seal this information 20 or attempt to narrowly tailor their requests by proposing more limited redactions. See, e.g., 21 Witkin v. Lotersztain, 2021 WL 6140994, *1–2 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 29, 2021) (partially 22 granting motion to seal prisoner’s medical records as to information unrelated to the 23 medical injury at issue in the case, but denying portions directly related to claim at issue 24 where any risk of injury was speculative). For these reasons, Defendants’ Motion to Seal 25 is DENIED without prejudice. 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 1 CONCLUSION 2 For the foregoing reasons: 3 1. The Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ Motion to Seal (1) the redacted medical 4 ||information in David Thomas’s medical records, (2) the personal address and contact 5 ||information of Plaintiffs’ expert Dr. Stewart, (3) the names and identifying information of 6 || witnesses to the death of Aaron Bonin, (4) the identifying information of non-declarant 7 ||class members in connection with their medical information, and (5) the floor plan of a 8 || housing unit at the jail. (Doc. No. 976.) 9 2. The Court DENIES without prejudice Plaintiffs’ Motion to Seal the redacted 10 || portions of the Grunfeld Declaration, the Dr. Stewart Declaration, and Exhibit B attached 11 || to the Stewart Declaration. (Doc. No. 976.) 12 3. The Court DENIES without prejudice Defendants’ Motion to Seal. (Doc. 13 || No. 986.) 14 4. The Court recognizes the potentially sensitive nature of some of the 15 documents at issue in the instant motions. Accordingly, the parties have fourteen (14) days 16 the issuance of this Order to file a motion for reconsideration. Any motion for 17 ||reconsideration must address the compelling reasons for why specific information should 18 || be sealed. All documents will remain under seal in the interim. 19 5. If no motion for reconsideration is filed, the Court will issue an order directing 20 || the parties to file unredacted versions of the documents at issue. ! 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 ||Dated: September 14, 2026 © g 23 Hon. Anthony J.Battaglia 24 United States District Judge 25 26 || 27 ||! As it relates to Dr. Stewart’s Declaration and attached exhibit, if no motion for reconsideration is filed, 28 the Court will order Plaintiffs to file a modified declaration and exhibit redacting only the names and other identifying information of the class members. ll