Filed: Jun. 27, 2018
Latest Update: Jun. 27, 2018
Summary: ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO SEAL [Doc. No. 19]. KAREN S. CRAWFORD , Magistrate Judge . Presently before the Court is plaintiff's Motion to Seal. [Doc. No. 19]. Plaintiff asserts defendant has "recklessly [ ] violated FRCP 5.2(a)(1)" by filing the Administrative Record [Doc. No. 13], which contains plaintiff's social security number, date of birth, and likely his IRS account number. [ Id. at p. 1]. He also asserts the personal identifying information of his two ch
Summary: ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO SEAL [Doc. No. 19]. KAREN S. CRAWFORD , Magistrate Judge . Presently before the Court is plaintiff's Motion to Seal. [Doc. No. 19]. Plaintiff asserts defendant has "recklessly [ ] violated FRCP 5.2(a)(1)" by filing the Administrative Record [Doc. No. 13], which contains plaintiff's social security number, date of birth, and likely his IRS account number. [ Id. at p. 1]. He also asserts the personal identifying information of his two chi..
More
ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO SEAL
[Doc. No. 19].
KAREN S. CRAWFORD, Magistrate Judge.
Presently before the Court is plaintiff's Motion to Seal. [Doc. No. 19]. Plaintiff asserts defendant has "recklessly [ ] violated FRCP 5.2(a)(1)" by filing the Administrative Record [Doc. No. 13], which contains plaintiff's social security number, date of birth, and likely his IRS account number. [Id. at p. 1]. He also asserts the personal identifying information of his two children is impermissibly included the record. [Id.]. For that reason, he requests the case be immediately sealed. [Id.].
Defendant, in opposition, argues Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2(b)(2) "exempts `the record of an administrative or agency proceeding' from redaction requirements." [Doc. No. 21 at p. 2]. Moreover, defendant argues the case need not be sealed because remote access is already limited to attorneys and parties. [Id.].
The general rule in the Ninth Circuit strongly favors public access to documents filed with the courts. Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). Sealing a case file is not warranted merely because personal, identifying information, is contained in the administrative record of a social security disability claims matter. See, e.g., Wong v. Astrue, No. C 08-02432, 2008 WL 2323860, at *1 (N.D. Cal. May 20, 2008); Ricks v. Colvin, No. RWT 14-1607, 2016 WL 97854, at *7 (D. Md. Jan. 8, 2016). Moreover, defendant has not violated Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2 insofar as plaintiff's personal information is contained in the administrative record. Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2(b)(2) and (c)(1)-(2) ("[A]ccess to an electronic file is authorized as follows: [ ] the parties and their attorneys may have remote electronic access to any part of the case file, including the administrative record[,] any other person may have electronic access to the full record at the courthouse, [but remote access only to] an opinion, order, or other disposition of the court, [ ] not any other part of the case file or the administrative record"). No compelling reason has been given why the plaintiff's identifying information must be sealed to overcome the strong Ninth Circuit presumption.
However, plaintiff also argues that the Administrative Record [Doc. No. 13] contains personal, identifying information of his two children. [Doc. No. 19 at p. 1]. As to this issue, the Motion is vaguely worded and does not clearly convey what specific information regarding plaintiff's children might be contained in the administrative record.1 The Court will not make plaintiff's argument for him. Because the record of an agency proceeding is exempted from the general redaction requirement, absent more, the Court cannot grant plaintiff's Motion at this time. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2(b).
Accordingly, plaintiff's Motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
