1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 NANCY BARR, Case No.: 19-cv-1887-MMA (MDD) 12

ORDER RE: PLANTIFF’S

13 Plaintiff, MOTIONS TO SEAL v. 14 [Doc. Nos. 35 & 42]

LABORATORY CORPORATION OF

15 AMERICA HOLDINGS, et al., 16 Defendants. 17 18 19 On May 10, 2021, Plaintiff filed a motion to file exhibits in support of her 20 opposition to Defendant’s summary judgment motion under seal (“First Motion”). See 21 Doc. No. 35. Plaintiff’s sole basis for sealing the exhibits was “pursuant to the Protective 22 Order in this case.” Doc. No. 35 at 1. As the Court explained in its interim order, there 23 was no protective order. See Doc. No. 39. Accordingly, the Court directed Plaintiff to 24 file supplemental briefing. See id. 25 Thereafter, the parties filed a joint motion for a protective order, see Doc. No. 40, 26 which Magistrate Judge Dembin granted, see Doc. No. 41 (the “Protective Order”). It is 27 unclear why the parties sought a Rule 26 Protective Order at this juncture. Discovery 28 closed nearly three months ago. See Doc. No. 25. Moreover, Plaintiff did not submit 1 additional briefing as directed. Instead, she filed a “supplemental” motion to seal 2 (“Second Motion”). See Doc. No. 42. 3 It is also entirely unclear what documents Plaintiff wishes to file under seal. 4 Through the First Motion, Plaintiff requests to file under seal “all Exhibits” in support of 5 her opposition. Doc. No. 35 at 1. Her exhibits—contained in Doc. Nos. 36, 37, and 38— 6 contain over 500 pages of documents that are not continuously numbered: Doc. No. 36 7 attaches documents labeled exhibits 1–5 and 7–11; Doc. No. 37 attaches a separate 8 amalgamation of documents labeled exhibits 1–17; and Doc. No. 38 attaches a document 9 identified as exhibit 6. As to the Second Motion, Plaintiff attaches a third compilation of 10 over 500 pages of documents labeled exhibits 1–11. See Doc. Nos. 42-1, 42-2. Despite 11 attaching a new set of eleven exhibits to the Second Motion, however, Plaintiff asks to 12 seal exhibits 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 15, 16, and 17 as well as “several pages of testimony.” 13 Doc. No. 42 at 2. Moreover, many of these exhibits are not acceptable for filing. For 14 example, Plaintiff attaches numerous pages of deposition transcripts embedded within 15 various letters and email chains. See, e.g., Doc. No. 42-2 at 384. This is entirely 16 inappropriate. 17 Nonetheless, the Court has reviewed all documents, considered the merits, and 18 finds that Plaintiff fails to demonstrate why she is entitled to file nearly 1,000 pages of 19 documents under seal in their entirety. To the extent she sought the ex post facto 20 Protective Order to satisfy her burden, her reliance is misplaced. Rule 26 protective 21 orders do not inherently demonstrate a compelling reason to file documents under seal or 22 otherwise obfuscate the need to seek Court approval to do so pursuant to Rule 5.2. By its 23 own language, the Protective Order does not state that certain documents may or must be 24 filed under seal simply by virtue of being designated confidential by the parties. Instead, 25 it indicates that “the party seeking to file such material must seek permission of the Court 26 to file the material under seal. No document shall be filed under seal unless counsel 27 secures a court order allowing the filing of a document, or portion thereof, under seal.” 28 Doc. No. 41 (emphasis added). l That said, the Court agrees that the “specimen mix-up” patient’s name should 2 ||remain confidential to protect her medical information and privacy. Doc. No. 42. at 1-2. 3 || However, Plaintiff does not explain why all documents must be sealed in their entirety on 4 basis alone. Many of the exhibits do not contain the patient’s name. Moreover, the 5 || ones that do are certainly not littered with it. Instead, it would be more appropriate to 6 simply redact this information, which as Plaintiff indicates, is an acceptable alternative. 7 || See id. at 2. 8 Accordingly, Plaintiff fails to establish a compelling reason to overcome the strong 9 || presumption in favor of the general right to public access. See Nixon v. Warner 10 || Comme’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 n.7 (1978); see also Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of 11 || Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). The Court therefore DENIES the First 12 || Motion in its entirety. The Court further DENIES in part the Second Motion and 13 || GRANTS Plaintiffs alternate request to file redacted versions of her exhibits. The Court 14 || DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to STRIKE Doc. Nos. 36, 37, 38, 42-1, and 42-2 from the 15 || docket. 16 Finally, the Court DIRECTS Plaintiff to file appropriately labelled, authenticated, 17 || and redacted versions of her exhibits, on or before June 21, 2021. For the reasons 18 || explained above, the Court does not accept any exhibits filed to date as evidence in 19 || support of her opposition. Should Plaintiff fail to comply with this Order, the Court will 20 ||not accept any further evidence. 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 ||Dated: June 17, 2021 23 WMeituk Ud - Ld thes 24 HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO 35 United States District Judge 26 27 28