Aya Healthcare Services, Inc. v. AMN Healthcare, Inc.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Michael M. Anello (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed the sealing of its May 12, 2020 order, which had granted a Daubert motion and partially granted summary judgment. The court ordered the parties to submit a joint proposed redacted version of the order for filing.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Order to submit joint proposed redacted version“the Court ORDERS the parties to submit a joint proposed redacted version of the Order directly to the undersigned’s Chambers e-file address, efile_anello@casd.uscourts.gov, no later than May 20, 2020.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the presumption of public access to court records, finding that the entire order did not need to remain sealed. Ordering the parties to propose redactions is a standard procedural mechanism to balance privacy interests with public access. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly cites Ninth Circuit precedent regarding the presumption of public access and the requirement for compelling reasons to seal records. The procedural step of requesting a joint redaction proposal is appropriate and standard.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 AYA HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC. Case No.: 17cv205-MMA (MDD) 12 and AYA HEALTHCARE, INC., ORDER RE: REDACTED VERSION 13 OF MAY 12, 2020 ORDER Plaintiffs, 14 v. 15 AMN HEALTHCARE, INC., et al., 16 Defendants. 17 18 19 20 On May 12, 2020, the Court issued an Order granting Defendants’ Daubert motion 21 and granting in part and denying in part Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. See 22 SEALED Doc. No. 202. The Court directed the Clerk of Court to file the Order under 23 seal.1 “Unless a particular court record is one ‘traditionally kept secret,’ a ‘strong 24 presumption in favor of access is the starting point.” Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of 25 Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. 26 Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). The Court finds that compelling reasons 27 28 1 || do not justify maintaining the entirety of the Order under seal. See Ctr. for Auto Safety v. 2 || Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092 (9th Cir. 2016). Accordingly, the Court will issue a 3 redacted version of the Order. 4 To assist the Court in determining the appropriate extent of the redactions, the 5 || Court ORDERS the parties to submit a joint proposed redacted version of the Order 6 || directly to the undersigned’s Chambers e-file address, efile_anello@casd.uscourts.gov, 7 ||no later than May 20, 2020. The Court will review the proposed submission and issue a 8 ||redacted version of the May 12, 2020 Order shortly thereafter. 9 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 12 ||Dated: May 13, 2020 Mikel MU Ld. tolls 13 HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO 4 United States District Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28