Opinion
2:12-cr-00401-KJM-1
04-10-2023
United States of America, Plaintiffs, v. Albert Lee Mitchell, Defendant.
ORDER
Citing “confidential and sensitive medical information,” defendant Albert Mitchell requests to seal his affidavit and other documents in support of his motion for reconsideration. Req., ECF No. 364. The court has considered the factors set forth in Oregonian Publ'g Co. v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 920 F.2d 1462 (9th Cir. 1990) (“(1) closure serves a compelling interest; (2) there is a substantial probability that, in the absence of closure, this compelling interest would be harmed; and (3) there are no alternatives to closure that would adequately protect the compelling interest.” (citing Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Ct., 478 U.S. 1, 13-14 (1986))). Courts in this circuit have “recognized that the need to protect medical privacy qualifies as a ‘compelling reason' for sealing records.” Chester v. King, No. 16-01257, 2019 WL 5420213, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 23, 2019).
However, the court does not grant blanket requests to seal. Under Local Rule 141(b), requests to seal must “set forth the statutory or other authority for sealing, the requested duration, the identity, by name or category, of persons to be permitted access to the documents, and all other relevant information.” E.D. Cal. L.R. 141(b). Defendant does not specify what information must be sealed. The documents in support of his motion include email exchanges, letters and inmate requests describing his and his spouse's medical conditions. As the court informed defendant in its previous orders, see, e.g., ECF Nos. 349, 354, while there is a compelling interest in protecting the medical privacy of the defendant and his spouse, there are alternatives that could adequately protect this interest. For example, defendant could redact the sensitive information contained in the documents. Defendant could also file documents that do not contain sensitive information on the public docket while narrowly requesting to seal just the medical information. Thus, the defendant's request to seal is denied without prejudice to a renewed motion requesting limited redactions. Alternatively, the defendant may file the documents on the public docket.
This order resolves ECF No. 364.
IT IS SO ORDERED.