Summary
granting request to seal psychiatric and medical records
Summary of this case from Hedrick v. GrantOpinion
No. 2:16-cv-0411 TLN CKD P
08-09-2016
NOAH H. O. BATTLE, Petitioner, v. JOEL MARTINEZ, Respondent.
ORDER
Petitioner challenges his 2011 conviction and sentence in a petition brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On July 29, 2016, respondent filed a motion to dismiss the motion as time-barred (ECF No. 16), along with a request to seal documents pursuant to Local Rule 141 (ECF No. 17).
Respondent seeks to seal Exhibit A to the motion to dismiss, consisting of over two hundred pages of petitioner's mental health records beginning in February 2013, and the motion itself, which describes the contents of Exhibit A. Respondent believes that petitioner's "interest in privacy outweighs any legitimate public interest in the disclosure of petitioner's mental health records." (ECF No. 17.)
There is a strong presumption in favor of public access to court records. See Phillips v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210 (9th Cir. 2002). However, "access to judicial records is not absolute." Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). The court has inherent power over its own records and files, and access may be denied where the court determines that the documents may be used for improper purposes." Nixon v. Warner Comm., Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978); Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179.
The Ninth Circuit distinguishes between dispositive and nondispositive pleadings and motions in terms of the showing required to seal a document. For a document filed with a dispositive motion, "compelling reasons" must be shown to justify sealing the document. Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179-89. In contrast, for documents filed with non-dispositive motions, a "good cause" showing will suffice to keep the records sealed. Id. This is based on the reasoning that the public has less need for access to records that are merely tangentially related to the underlying cause of action. Id. at 1179.
As the motion to dismiss is a dispositive filing, respondent must show "compelling reasons" to keep the documents sealed. The court has reviewed the attached records, which contain detailed medical information about petitioner. On balance, the potential harm to both parties' interests outweighs the public's right to access petitioner's psychiatric history. Respondent has made an adequate showing of compelling reasons to seal these medical records.
Accordingly, the court will grant respondent's motion to seal both Exhibit A and the motion to dismiss. As respondent filed these documents instead of submitting them to the court for in camera review per Local Rule 141(b), the court will direct the Clerk of Court to redesignate these documents as filed under seal, nunc pro tunc, as of the filing date.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Respondent's request to seal documents (ECF No. 17) is granted; and
2. Respondent's motion to dismiss the petition and Exhibit A accompanying the motion (ECF Nos. 16 & 16-1) are to be filed under seal, nunc pro tunc, as of the date of filing. Dated: August 9, 2016
/s/_________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 2 / batt0411.seal