Shears v. United States of America
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Karen S. Crawford (author)
Analysis
The court considered an unopposed motion to seal documents lodged in connection with a minor's compromise, including a joint petition and settlement details. The court granted the motion, ordering the Clerk to file the lodged documents under seal in their entirety.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion to Seal documents lodged at Docket Number 82 granted“Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the Motion to Seal. The Clerk of Court is directed to file the documents lodged at Docket Number 82 under seal in their entirety.” | agree with court The court applied the correct legal framework from the Ninth Circuit, recognizing a strong presumption of public access that can be overcome by compelling reasons, such as privacy interests. The court identified specific sensitive information (medical details, financial settlement amounts, and identifying information) that supports sealing. The reliance on district court cases for the specific application of privacy to medical and financial data is consistent with the broader Ninth Circuit precedent cited. The decision follows logically from the stated facts and legal standards. |
Request to seal future Order of Approval denied as premature“The Court finds plaintiff’s request to seal “any Order of Approval” regarding the minor’s compromise is premature, but will assess the need to seal its Order at the appropriate time.” | agree with court The court correctly identified that it cannot seal an order that has not yet been issued. Deferring the decision until the order is drafted and filed is a standard procedural practice. The court reserved the right to assess the need for sealing at that time, which is appropriate. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the applicable legal standard from the Ninth Circuit (Kamakana) and applies it to the specific facts of the case. It cites relevant district court cases to support the specific privacy interests at issue (medical, financial, and identifying information). The reasoning is direct and addresses the motion effectively. There are no significant gaps or questionable applications of law.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 H.S., a minor, by and through his mother Case No.: 3:17-cv-02418-BTM-KSC and natural guardian, SAMANTHA 12 PARDE, ORDER SEALING PETITION FOR 13 APPROVAL OF A MINOR’S Plaintiff, COMPROMISE AND RELATED 14 v. EXHIBITS 15 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, and [Doc. No. 80] 16 DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, 17 Defendants. 18 19 20 Before the Court is plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion for a Court Order Sealing the 21 Record for a Minor’s Compromise. Doc. No. 80. The Court will construe this as a 22 Motion to Seal the documents conditionally lodged under seal at Docket Number 82, 23 which consist of the parties’ Joint Petition and Stipulation for Approval of Minor’s 24 Compromise and Release of Claims and supporting exhibits (collectively, the “lodged 25 documents”). Having reviewed the documents, and for the following reasons, the Court 26 GRANTS the Motion to Seal. 27 The Ninth Circuit recognizes the public’s “‘general right to inspect and copy 28 public records and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. 1 || City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir.2006) (citations omitted). 2 || However, the “strong presumption” of public access can be overcome where a litigant’s 3 || competing privacy interests create “compelling reasons” to keep information from public 4 || view. Id. at 1178-79. 5 Here, the lodged documents are replete with sensitive information that plaintiff is 6 || entitled to keep private. The lodged documents describe in detail plaintiffs injuries, past 7 medical treatment and expected future care. Such personal and family matters tip the 8 || balance in favor of sealing. See Covert v. City of San Diego, No. 15-CV-2097-AJB 9 ||(WVG), 2016 WL 7117364, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 6, 2016). The lodged documents also 10 || specify the amount of the settlement and other “personal financial information” of the 11 that is “universally presumed to be private, not public.” Sec. Exch. Comm’n v. Total 12 || Wealth Mgmt., Inc., No. 15-cv-0226-BAS-DHB, 2017 WL 426839, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 13 2017) (collecting cases) (citations omitted). The Court further finds that there is 14 || enough identifying information in the lodged documents that simply using plaintiff’ 15 ||initials will not adequately protect his privacy. See McMillan v. Chaker, No. 16cv2186- 16 || WQH-MDD, 2017 WL 4417686, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 2, 2017) (sealing documents 17 || where identifying information “could become a vehicle for improper purposes”). Thus, 18 || the Court finds that plaintiffs privacy interest outweighs the public’s right to access and 19 inspect the lodged documents. 20 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the Motion to Seal. The Clerk of Court is 21 || directed to file the documents lodged at Docket Number 82 under seal in their entirety.! 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 ||Dated: October 23, 2020 diy 7 > 24 fi fi SS 25 How. Karen S. Crawford United States Magistrate Judge 26 27 3g ||‘ The Court finds plaintiff’s request to seal “any Order of Approval” regarding the minor’s compromise is premature, but will assess the need to seal its Order at the appropriate time. Doc. No. 80 at 3.