Opinion
2:19-cv-1338 WBS KJN P
01-26-2022
KEENAN WILKINS, aka NERRAH BROWN Plaintiff, v. DR. CHRISTINE S. BARBER, et al., Defendants.
FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS
KENDALL J. NEWMAN, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
I. Introduction
Plaintiff is a state prisoner. On November 12, 2021, plaintiff filed a motion to protect his privacy rights under Rule 59 or 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or in the alternative, plaintiff moves for reconsideration. (ECF No. 218.) Defendants filed no opposition.
As set forth below, the undersigned recommends that plaintiff's motion be denied.
II. Background
On July 13, 2020, plaintiff filed a motion to seal confidential medical records. (ECF No. 97.) On September 11, 2020, the undersigned reviewed the medical records, found that as to some of the medical records, the need to protect plaintiff's sensitive and confidential information outweighed any necessity for disclosure at this time, and partially granted plaintiff's motion to seal. (ECF No. 116 at 3-4.)
On September 28, 2020, plaintiff filed a reply accompanied by a motion to file specific medical records under seal. (ECF No. 126.) On October 19, 2020, the undersigned found plaintiff's reply was improperly filed, and directed the clerk to return the medical records to plaintiff. Plaintiff was instructed how to submit records he wished to file under seal, and cautioned that:
whether or not medical records will be sealed is not automatic. Plaintiff has put his medical treatment at issue, and there is a strong presumption that judicial records are accessible to the public. Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006).(ECF No. 128 at 2.)
On October 6, 2021, plaintiff renewed his motion to seal confidential medical records. (ECF No. 205 at 1.) Plaintiff objected that defense counsel willfully violated plaintiff's privacy and victim rights, and then argued that his medical records should be sealed because they are confidential. (Id.) On October 27, 2021, the court denied plaintiff's motion to seal all of his medical records, again relying on Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178, and now Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003). (ECF No. 213.) The undersigned found that plaintiff's Eighth Amendment and state law claims involve plaintiff's myriad medical conditions, and evaluation of his medical treatment will be required to address the merits of the pending motions for summary judgment. (ECF No. 213.) Because plaintiff provided no compelling reason to seal such records, the undersigned found that plaintiff failed to meet his burden and denied the motion.
In the instant motion, plaintiff asks the court to reconsider its ruling on plaintiff's motion to seal all of his medical records in this case (ECF No. 218).
III. Legal Standards
Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that “[o]n motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a party . . . from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud . . ., misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party; . . . or (6) any other reason justifying relief from the operation of judgment.”
Subsection (4) “the judgment is void, ” and subsection (5) “the judgment has been satisfied, ” do not apply. Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(4), (5). Rule 59 is inapplicable because no trial has been held, or judgment entered. Further, plaintiff was previously provided the standards governing both Rule 59 and Rule 60 in the October 28, 2021 order. (ECF No. 214 at 6.)
“A motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances, unless the . . . court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law.” Marlyn Nutraceuticals, Inc. v. Mucos Pharma GmbH & Co., 571 F.3d 873, 880 (9th Cir. 2009). Relief under Rule 60 “is to be used sparingly as an equitable remedy to prevent manifest injustice and is to be utilized only where extraordinary circumstances” exist. Harvest v. Castro, 531 F.3d 737, 749 (9th Cir. 2008) (internal quotations marks and citation omitted) (addressing reconsideration under Rule 60(b)(1) -(5)). Reconsideration is not appropriate when a movant relies on arguments previously raised; that is, a motion for reconsideration is not a vehicle permitting the unsuccessful party to reiterate arguments previously presented. See Maraziti v. Thorpe, 52 F.3d 252, 255 (9th Cir. 1995) (district court properly denied Rule 60(b)(6) motion because movant “merely reiterated the arguments that he had already presented to the district court”).
In addition, Local Rule 230(j) requires that a motion for reconsideration state “what new or different facts or circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist or were not shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for the motion, ” and “why the facts or circumstances were not shown at the time of the prior motion.” E.D. Cal., L.R. 230(j)(3)-(4).
IV. Discussion
Plaintiff now argues that his privacy rights are violated by the court's denial of plaintiff's motion to seal his medical records. (See ECF No. 205.) But plaintiff sets forth no newly discovered evidence and fails to demonstrate the court committed clear error. Plaintiff identifies no intervening change in the controlling law. He does cite nine district court decisions. However, all of the district court cases cited were issued prior to this court's October 27, 2021 order. But most importantly, other district court decisions are not binding on this court, and therefore are not controlling. It is not uncommon for district courts to disagree, but only decisions by the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit or the U.S. Supreme Court are controlling. Thus, plaintiff is not entitled to relief under Rule 60.
Plaintiff also cited United States v. Labor, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 231482, but the number cited is the same as Ramirez, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 231482. Plaintiff cited nine district court cases, but failed to identify the court that issued the decision, the precise date the decision was rendered, or the page number upon which plaintiff relied. (ECF No. 218 at 2-3.) Plaintiff is cautioned that failure to provide such information in the future will result in the court disregarding such citation. On this one occasion, and because such information was important in addressing plaintiff's motion, the court provides the full citation for each case cited by plaintiff but will not do so in the future. Plaintiff cited: Steven City Broomfield v. Aranas, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87484 (D. Nev. May 19, 2020); Liaw v. United Airlines, Inc., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 204492 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 22, 2019); United States v. Davis, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 243977 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 29, 2020); United States v. Dadi, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 187336 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 8, 2020); United States v. Prom, 2021 U.S. District LEXIS 56147 (E.D. Cal. March 24, 2021); United States v. Ramirez, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 231482 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 9, 2020); Johnsen v. Tambe, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 144715 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 26, 2019); Ribot v. Smith, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4191 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 7, 2021); and Pratt v. Gamboa, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90913 (N.D. Cal. May 22, 2020).
Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration also fails. Plaintiff did not explain why he was unable to make his privacy rights argument in his prior motion to seal. He did not identify any different facts or circumstances which did not exist or were not included in his prior motion to seal. Upon reconsideration, the order denying plaintiff's motion to seal all medical records in this case (ECF No. 213) should be affirmed. V. Law of the Case
Once a decision of law is made, it becomes the “law of the case, ” and absent clear error or changed circumstances should not be changed. See United States v. Estrada Lucas, 651 F.2d 1261, 1263-64 (9th Cir. 1980). “The law of the case doctrine is a judicial invention designed to aid in the efficient operation of court affairs.” Milgard Tempering, Inc. v. Selas Corp. of America, 902 F.2d 703, 715 (9th Cir. 1990), citing Lockert v. United States Dept. of Labor, 867 F.2d 513, 518 (9th Cir. 1989). Under the doctrine, “a court will generally refuse to reconsider an issue that has already been decided by the same court or a higher court in the same case.” Gonzalez v. Arizona, 677 F.3d 383, 389-90 n.4 (9th Cir. 2012), cert. granted, 568 U.S. 962 (2012) and aff'd sub nom. Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc., 570 U.S. 1 (2013).
Plaintiff continues to challenge this court's decision not to seal all of plaintiff s medical records in this case. However, the denial of plaintiff s motion to seal all medical records in this action is law of the case, precluding any further challenge by plaintiff in this action. In other words, absent clear error or changed circumstances, this court will refuse to reconsider the issue in this action. Certainly, plaintiff remains free to challenge whether a particular document should be sealed. But no further requests to seal the entirety of plaintiff s medical records will be entertained, subject to rare exceptions identified above. IV. Conclusion
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:
1. Plaintiffs motion for relief under Rule 60 (ECF No. 218) be denied;
2. Upon reconsideration, the order denying plaintiffs motion to seal all medical records in this case (ECF No. 213) should be affirmed; and
3. The decision not to seal all of plaintiff s medical records should be deemed law of the case.
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).