[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING JOINT REQUEST TO SEAL SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE ATTACHED AS EXHIBIT 1 TO JOINT APPLICATION TO VACATE DATES

JENNIFER L. THURSTON, Magistrate Judge.

Having considered the Joint Request to Seal the Settlement Agreement in the above-captioned matter, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Settlement Agreement and Release Attached as Exhibit 1 to Joint Application to Vacate Dates in this matter be sealed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

JOINT REQUEST TO SEAL SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE ATTACHED AS EXHIBIT 1 TO JOINT APPLICATION TO VACATE DATES

TO THE HONORABLE COURT:

Pursuant to Local Rule 141, the parties jointly move for an order directing the clerk to file under seal the Settlement Agreement and Release (Agreement") attached as Exhibit 1 to the Joint Application to Vacate Dates filed in the above-referenced matter on August 12, 2016. This matter is in regard to a child with multiple disabilities who is protected under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. §§ 1400, et seq.), the Family Educational and Privacy Rights Act (20 U.S.C. § 1232g; 34 C.F.R. 300.623), and the California Education Code (Cal. Educ. Code § 49076) from disclosure about his disabilities and any and all aspects of his education.

The Ninth Circuit has comprehensively examined the common law right of public access to judicial files and records. (See Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2006).) In Kamakana, the court recognized that different interests are at stake in preserving the secrecy of materials produced during discovery, and materials produced or presented in relation to dispositive motions. (Id. at 1180-81.) According to the court, two standards apply to account for these interests when evaluating requests to seal such materials. A party seeking to seal "private materials unearthed during discovery," or to maintain the sealing of such materials when attached to non-dispositive motions, need only demonstrate "good cause" to justify sealing. (Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass'n., 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010).)

A party must demonstrate "compelling reasons" to seal judicial records attached to a dispositive motion. (Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179.) Here, the compelling reason is that the child about whom the litigation concerns was only three years of age during the litigation, has multiple disabilities and is entitled to have his educational and health records (which include extensive information about his disabilities) remain private. These are compelling reasons to keep the Agreement, which references Student's medical condition, under seal. (See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178-1180; M.P. ex rel. Provins v. Lowe's Companies, Inc., 2012 U.S. Dist. Lexis 62338 (E.D. Cal. May 3, 2012).) The compelling reasons must outweigh the competing interests of the public in having access to the judicial records and understanding the judicial process. (Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178-79; see also Pintos, 605 F.3d at 679 and n. 6 (a court must weigh "relevant factors," including the public's interest in understanding the judicial process).) The Ninth Circuit has indicated that "`compelling reasons' sufficient to outweigh the public's interest in disclosure and justify sealing court records exist when such `court files might have become a vehicle for improper purpose,' such as the use of records to gratify private spite and prompt public scandal. . ." (Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179.)

In this matter, the Agreement has the Student's name and personally identifying information on such document, including reference to his medical condition. Additionally, the Agreement which was filed as Exhibit 1 to the Joint Application to Vacate Dates had information about Student's health, his intellectual functioning, his physical functioning, his disabilities, as well as other personally private information. In fact, the entirety of the proceedings before this Court is in regard to whether the child's vision necessitates the need for vision therapy to assist the child with his education.

Both parties request that the court, upon review of the Agreement, find that it be sealed. Neither party is aware of a need for public access to this child's health, education and personal information. In this situation, there is an interest in keeping this child's personal information private. Both parties believe that any right to public access to these documents is outweighed by the child's private interests under the IDEA, FERPA and the California Education Code. Public disclosure here would undermine the confidential nature of J.F.'s personal records and his identifiable information and it would provide access to the public when that is typically not allowed under the law. Both parties believe that the final decision by this court in this matter will be sanitized and only the child's initials, J.F., will be used and, therefore, the interest to the public as to the outcome of the matter will be known to the public at that time. Both parties assert that the balance of interests tips in the favor of sealing the Agreement. Both parties request that the Court find that there is a compelling reason to allow the Agreement to be filed under seal.

The parties respectfully request that the Agreement in this matter be sealed.