HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL

[DOC. NO. 30]

HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Pending before the Court is Defendant Sharp Healthcare's motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended Consolidated Complaint. On October 9, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a redacted opposition, as well as a motion for leave to file an unredacted version of their opposition under seal. Plaintiffs' motion to seal is unopposed to date.

When presented with a request to file a document under seal, the Court begins with the strong presumption in favor of the “general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and documents.” Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 n.7 (1978); see also Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). “The presumption of access is ‘based on the need for federal courts, although independent-indeed, particularly because they are independent-to have a measure of accountability and for the public to have confidence in the administration of justice.'” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1048 (2d Cir. 1995)). As such, the burden on a motion to seal falls squarely on the movant. Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1176. The moving party can only overcome the presumption by “articulat[ing] compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings . . . that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure, such as the public interest in understanding the judicial process.” Id. at 1178 (citations omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted). “In turn, the court must ‘conscientiously balance[ ] the competing interests' of the public and the party who seeks to keep certain judicial records secret.” Id. at 1179 (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). “What constitutes a ‘compelling reason' is ‘best left to the sound discretion of the trial court.'” Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1097 (quoting Nixon, 435 U.S. at 599).

Having reviewed the motion and respective documents, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have shown compelling reasons to file the unredacted opposition under seal. See, e.g., Dunsmore v. San Diego Cty. Sheriff's Dep't, No. 20-cv-00406-AJB-DDL, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 102207, at *5 (S.D. Cal. June 12, 2023) (recognizing that the need to protect medical privacy has qualified as a “compelling reason” for sealing records). Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs' motion and DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to file Doc. No. 31 UNDER SEAL.

IT IS SO ORDERED.