Estate of Gerardo Cruz-Sanchez v. United States of America
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- On appeal
- Paula Garcia Rivera v. USA (2023-12-11) — affirmed — the Ninth Circuit's later ruling on this docket
- Panel
- Anthony J. Battaglia (author)
Analysis
Defendants moved to seal specific exhibits, including medical records and security procedures, submitted in connection with their summary judgment motion. The court granted the motion, finding that the privacy and security interests outweighed the public's right of access.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Defendants' Motion to Seal (Doc. No. 87) is granted.“Thus, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to seal. (Doc. No. 87)” | agree with court The court correctly applied the Ninth Circuit's 'compelling reasons' standard for sealing judicial records. The order identifies specific interests (medical privacy and institutional security) that are generally recognized as compelling. The decision follows from the law and the record recited in the order. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the applicable legal standard (compelling reasons) and applies it to the specific facts presented (medical privacy and security concerns). It cites the correct binding authority from the Ninth Circuit and Supreme Court. The reasoning is sufficient to support the result.
Opinion
1 2 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ESTATE OF GERARDO CRUZ- Case No.: 17-cv-00569-AJB-NLS 11 SANCHEZ, by and through his successor- 12 in-interest Paula Garcia Rivera, et al., ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO SEAL 13 Plaintiffs, v. 14 (Doc. No. 87)
15 THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., 16 Defendants. 17 18 19 Pending before the Court is a motion to seal filed by Defendants on September 14, 20 2018. (Doc. No. 87.) Defendants’ motion requests the following documents to be filed 21 under seal: 22 • Attachment 2 and 3 to Beverly Soria’s Declaration (Exhibit 2 to Defendants’ Motion 23 for Summary Judgment) 24 • Attachment 2 and 3 to Dennis Morris’ Declaration (Exhibit 11 to Defendants’ 25 Motion for Summary Judgment) 26 • Declaration of Owen Murray, D.O., MBA (Exhibit 6 to Defendants’ Motion for 27 Summary Judgment) 28 1 • Declaration of Joseph B. Marzouk, M.D. FACP (Exhibit 12 to Defendants’ Motion 2 for Summary Judgment) 3 • ICE Medical Records (Exhibit 3 to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment) 4 • Report of Todd Wilcox (Exhibit 1 to Defendants’ Motion to Exclude Expert 5 Opinions of Dr. Todd Wilcox) 6 Defendants contend the documents contain private information regarding Plaintiff’s 7 medical records and proprietary and security sensitive documents that memorialize 8 CoreCivic security operations and procedures. (Doc. No. 87 at 2.) 9 Courts have historically recognized a “general right to inspect and copy public 10 records and documents, including judicial records and documents.” Nixon v. Warner 11 Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978). “Unless a particular court record is one 12 ‘traditionally kept secret,’ a ‘strong presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.” 13 Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Foltz 14 v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). In order to 15 overcome this strong presumption, a party seeking to seal a judicial record must articulate 16 compelling justifications for sealing that outweigh the public policies favoring disclosure. 17 See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178–79. “In turn, the court must ‘conscientiously balance[] 18 the competing interests’ of the public and the party who seeks to keep certain judicial 19 records secret.” Id. at 1179 (citation omitted). 20 After a careful examination of the documents, the Court agrees with Defendants and 21 finds that despite the generally recognized right to inspect records and documents in this 22 country, Defendants have overcome this strong presumption of access by providing 23 compelling reasons to seal. See Nixon, 435 U.S. at 597 & n.7; see also Pintos v. Pac. 24 Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 677–78 (9th Cir. 2010) (holding that a “compelling reasons 25 standard applies to most [motions to seal] judicial records.”) (internal quotation marks 26 omitted). 27 Here, the documents Defendants wish to seal include personal and sensitive 28 information regarding Plaintiff, including incidents that occurred when he was in federal 1 ||/custody and his medical conditions. (Doc. No. 87.) The documents also include 2 ||information regarding CoreCivic’s security operations and procedures that if released 3 || publicly present safety and security concerns. (/d.) Accordingly, balancing the need for the 4 || public’s access to information and Defendants’ interest in keeping this material private 5 || weighs strongly in favor of sealing. Thus, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to seal. 6 || (Doc. No. 87); see Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1137 (acknowledging privacy interests implicated by 7 || Sensitive, personal, identifying information); see also Fosselman v. Evans, No. C 07-2606 8 ||PJH (PR), 2011 WL 939616, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 15, 2011) (granting a motion to seal 9 ||based on the finding that the documents would threaten the safety and security of the 10 || institution). 11 12 || IT ISSO ORDERED. 13 || Dated: September 17, 2019 © ¢ 14 Hon, Anthony J.Battaglia 15 United States District Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28