Cousin v. Sharp Healthcare

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 HANNAH COUSIN, et al., individually Case No.: 22-cv-2040-MMA (DDL) and on behalf of all others similarly 13 situated, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ 14 MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE Plaintiffs, UNDER SEAL PORTIONS OF FIRST 15 v. AMENDED CONSOLIDATED 16 COMPLAINT SHARP HEALTHCARE, 17 Defendant. [Doc. No. 21] 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 This action consists of three consolidated cases brought by Hannah Cousin, Linda 25 Camus, Deanna Franklin-Pittman, and Edward Barbat (“Plaintiffs”) against Defendant 26 Sharp Healthcare (“Defendant” or “Sharp”). See Case Nos. 22-cv-2040-MMA (DDL), 27 23-cv-33-MMA (DDL), 23-cv-330-MMA (DDL). On August 2, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a 28 redacted version of their First Amended Consolidated Complaint. See Doc. No. 23 1 (“FAC”). That same day, Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file an unredacted version 2 of their First Amended Consolidated Complaint under seal. See Doc. No. 21. 3 Courts have historically recognized a “general right to inspect and copy public 4 records and documents, including judicial records and documents.” Nixon v. Warner 5 Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 n.7 (1978). “Unless a particular court record is one 6 ‘traditionally kept secret,’ a ‘strong presumption in favor of access is the starting point.’” 7 Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting 8 Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). “The 9 presumption of access is ‘based on the need for federal courts, although independent— 10 indeed, particularly because they are independent—to have a measure of accountability 11 and for the public to have confidence in the administration of justice.’” Ctr. for Auto 12 Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting United States 13 v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1048 2d Cir. 1995)). Courts apply the compelling reasons 14 standard when considering whether to seal portions of a plaintiff’s complaint. See 15 Bestway (USA), Inc. v. Sgromo, No. 17-cv-00205-HSG, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 160181, 16 at *5 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 28, 2017) (collecting cases). 17 Here, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have shown compelling reasons to file portions 18 of their First Amended Consolidated Complaint under seal. See, e.g., Mendell v. Am. 19 Med. Response, Inc., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37706, at *11 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 1, 2021) 20 (“Compelling reasons may exist to seal protected health information and other personal 21 information that may be abused if disclosed to the public.”) (citing Hendricks v. Aetna 22 Life Ins. Co., No. CV1906840CJCMRWX, 2019 WL 9054346, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 7, 23 2019); Hunt v. Cont’l Cas. Co., 2015 WL 5355398, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 14, 2015); 24 Meyers v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan Inc., No. 17-CV-04946-LHK, 2019 WL 120657, at 25 *3 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 6, 2019). As Plaintiffs explain, “the FAC contains new allegations 26 detailing the confidential and sensitive health information of Plaintiffs.” Doc. No. 21 at 27 4. Moreover, “Plaintiffs’ request is narrowly tailored and does not seek wholesale 28 redactions of the FAC.” Id. at 3. l The Court therefore GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion to file portions of the FAC under 2 ||seal. See Doc. No. 21. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to file docket entry 22 3 ||} UNDER SEAL. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 Dated: August 14, 2023 7 HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO g United States District Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28