U.S. Bank National Association v. Sepehry-Fard
- Beth Freeman
- 5:22-cv-00628
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
U.S. Bank v. Sepehry-Fard: Judge Freeman granted sealing of medical records but denied a stay of proceedings.
The order affects Fareed Sepehry-Fard and U.S. Bank National Association: medical records may be filed under seal, but the case will proceed without the requested stay.
What happened
In U.S. Bank National Association v. Sepehry-Fard, the defendant asked the court to seal medical records and pause the case for at least six months because of his health condition.
The case is an unlawful-detainer action that the defendant removed from state court. The plaintiff did not oppose sealing the medical records. The defendant also argued that serious medical needs can implicate the constitutional ban on cruel and unusual punishment.
Judge Beth Labson Freeman granted the request to seal the medical records but denied the request to pause the proceedings. The court cited possible harm to the plaintiff, the orderly progress of the case, and the defendant's ability to file other motions.
The detailed version
- U.S. Bank National Association v. Sepehry-Fard · No. 5:22-cv-00628
- Beth Freeman
- Feb. 15, 2022
Background
The case is an unlawful-detainer action removed from Santa Clara County Superior Court. Defendant Fareed Sepehry-Fard sought two forms of relief: permission to file medical records under seal and a stay, meaning a temporary pause, of all proceedings for at least six months. He said the pause was needed so his medical condition could stabilize. He also argued that deliberate indifference to serious medical needs violates the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.
Sealing request
The court explained that a party seeking to seal judicial records must show compelling reasons that outweigh the public's general interest in access to court records and disclosure. Courts routinely find compelling reasons to protect confidential medical records. The plaintiff did not oppose the request, and the court found good cause to grant it.
Request to stay the case
The court noted that a party may file an ex parte motion—a motion made without the usual advance notice to the opposing party—only when a statute, federal rule, local rule, or standing order authorizes that filing. Defendant's application did not identify such authority.
The court also considered the usual stay factors: possible harm from granting the stay, the hardship to a party required to proceed, and whether a stay would simplify or complicate the case. The court noted that defendant had removed the case for the third time after two earlier unsuccessful attempts and had filed two other motions on February 8, 2022. The court viewed those filings as evidence that he was able to respond to the pending motion to remand. It concluded that possible prejudice to the plaintiff and the orderly course of justice strongly favored denying the stay, while also expressing sympathy for defendant's health condition.
Disposition
The court granted defendant's sealing motion and denied his ex parte application to stay the proceedings. The opinion did not decide the underlying merits of the unlawful-detainer case or defendant's Eighth Amendment argument.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.