Hernandez v. County of Monterey

Background

Plaintiffs brought the action over alleged failures to provide adequate medical and mental-health care, reasonable disability accommodations, and protection from violence to inmates at the Monterey County Jail. The court had approved the parties’ Settlement Agreement. Plaintiffs then filed a motion to enforce that agreement and an Implementation Plan developed by the County and Wellpath, Inc. This order addressed three administrative motions concerning the sealing of briefing and evidence connected to the enforcement motion; it did not decide the enforcement motion itself.

Legal standard

The court explained that judicial records generally are open to public inspection. Because the enforcement motion concerned the central relief sought in the case, the court applied the “compelling reasons” standard rather than the less demanding “good cause” standard. Under the compelling-reasons standard, a party seeking to seal judicial records must show sufficiently strong reasons that outweigh the public’s presumptive right of access. The court also required sealing requests to comply with Civil Local Rule 79-5, including a narrowly tailored request that seals only material that can properly be kept from public view.

Complete sealing of neutral-monitor reports

Plaintiffs asked the court to consider whether more than 30 reports prepared by court-appointed neutral monitors should be sealed in their entirety. Plaintiffs opposed complete sealing, while the County argued that the reports were confidential. The County argued that the reports were covered by the case’s Protective Order, that the monitors expected confidentiality, and that confidentiality was needed to preserve the free flow of information.

The court rejected those arguments as grounds for sealing all of the reports. It found that the reports were not produced in discovery and did not appear to fall within the Protective Order. It also found no authority establishing that a court-appointed monitor’s desire for confidentiality alone constitutes a compelling reason for sealing. In addition, the court relied on declarations indicating that the monitors’ concerns were addressed by redacting personal information, rather than by sealing the reports entirely. The motion to seal the neutral-monitor reports in their entirety was therefore DENIED.

Limited sealing

The parties jointly sought to seal limited portions of the enforcement motion, supporting declarations, exhibits, reply evidence, and neutral-monitor reports. The requested protections covered inmates’ names, birth dates, and booking numbers; names and email addresses of Wellpath health-care staff directly involved in patient care; other personal contact information; and certain medical and custody records concerning the recent deaths of three incarcerated people.

The court found that these requests were narrowly tailored and that the parties had shown compelling reasons to protect personal identifying information and health records. The court approved using initials for deceased class members where proposed, and approved sealing certain records in their entirety when they could not realistically be anonymized or redacted. The parties’ joint motions to file under seal, ECF 787 and 793, were GRANTED.

Order

The neutral-monitor reports and documents citing or referring to them were ordered filed on the public docket with only the limited redactions proposed in the joint motions and approved by the court. Plaintiffs were ordered to refile the enforcement motion, reply, and supporting evidence by July 28, 2023, with only the permitted redactions and sealing. The order terminated ECF 776, 787, and 793.