Hazari v. Superior Court of Santa Clara County
- Jeffrey White
- 4:21-cv-04262
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Hazari v. Superior Court of Santa Clara County, Judge White ordered a response about serving sealed medical records but denied a request to justify keeping them sealed.
Cyrus Hazari and Mandy Brady, particularly regarding service of Hazari’s sealing papers and access to his medical records.
What happened
In Hazari v. Superior Court of Santa Clara County, Cyrus Hazari had received permission to file medical records under seal. The court had also stayed the case and denied Mandy Brady’s motion to dismiss without prejudice.
Brady asked the court to require Hazari to explain why the medical records should remain sealed so she could review them and decide whether to seek an end to the stay. The court instead ordered Hazari to explain why he should not have to serve Brady with his sealing motions and the accompanying documents.
Judge White denied Brady’s request to require Hazari to explain why the records should remain sealed. The court said it would revisit that issue when considering the merits of Hazari’s claims and would also consider Brady’s request for security when deciding whether to lift the stay.
The detailed version
- Hazari v. Superior Court of Santa Clara County · No. 4:21-cv-04262
- Jeffrey White
- Sept. 27, 2021
Background
On August 25, 2021, the court granted Cyrus Hazari’s request to file medical records under seal. On September 8, 2021, it granted another request to seal medical records, stayed the case, and denied Defendant Mandy Brady’s pending motion to dismiss without prejudice. The court had stated that Brady could seek permission to lift the stay if she showed good cause.
Brady then asked the court to require Hazari to show cause—meaning explain why a particular order should not be entered—why the medical records should remain sealed. She argued that she needed to review the records to determine whether good cause existed to lift the stay. Her request also implicitly asserted that Hazari had not served her with the sealing motions and documents, as generally required by the federal and local procedural rules. The court noted that Hazari was representing himself but still had to follow those rules.
Ruling
The court ordered Hazari to show cause in writing by October 12, 2021, why he should not be required to serve Brady with his motions to seal and the accompanying documents.
The court denied Brady’s request to require Hazari to show cause why the documents should be maintained under seal. It stated that it would revisit whether the records should remain sealed when it considered the merits of Hazari’s claims. The court also stated that it would consider Brady’s request that Hazari post security when deciding whether the stay should be lifted.
Effect of the Order
The order addressed service of the sealing papers and deferred reconsideration of the records’ sealed status. It did not decide whether the records ultimately should remain under seal or whether the stay should be lifted.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.