Hernandez v. County of Monterey

Background

The court’s July 21, 2023 sealing order addressed requests concerning briefing and documents filed in connection with plaintiffs’ pending motion to enforce the settlement agreement and implementation plan regarding treatment of inmates at the Monterey County Jail. Defendants had asked the court to seal more than thirty reports prepared by court-appointed neutral monitors in their entirety. The court denied that request but granted the parties’ joint request to seal limited portions containing personal identifying information and health records. It ordered plaintiffs to re-file the reports publicly with only those permitted redactions.

Defendants appealed the sealing order and moved to stay it while the appeal was pending. A stay temporarily pauses enforcement of an order. The court held that the request was governed by the four-factor test from Nken v. Holder: likelihood of success on appeal, irreparable harm without a stay, harm to other parties, and the public interest. The court rejected defendants’ argument that the three-factor test from Landis v. North American Co. governed instead, explaining that Landis applies to staying proceedings while Nken applies to staying an order pending appeal.

Analysis

The court found that defendants’ motion did not address the likelihood-of-success factor. The sealing order would be reviewed for abuse of discretion, meaning the appellate court would examine whether the district court exceeded the permissible range of judgment. The court stated that it had applied the required “compelling reasons” standard and that defendants did not explain how applying that standard amounted to an abuse of discretion.

The court also found that defendants had not shown irreparable harm. The County Defendants raised safety and security concerns involving the timing of welfare checks and possible identification of inmates who died in custody. The court characterized those concerns as speculation insufficient to satisfy the irreparable-harm factor. Wellpath raised additional reasons for sealing in its reply, including possible distrust between its staff and patients and difficulty hiring and retaining medical staff. The court found those reasons were not legitimate grounds for sealing the reports or granting a stay.

Because defendants failed to show either a likelihood of success or irreparable harm, the court did not need to analyze the remaining two factors. It stated, however, that keeping the reports entirely sealed during the appeal would impair public access to documents relevant to plaintiffs’ motion to enforce the settlement agreement and implementation plan.

Disposition

Judge Beth Labson Freeman denied defendants’ motion for a stay of the sealing order pending appeal. The court extended the deadline for plaintiffs to re-file the neutral-monitor reports on the public docket, with the limited redactions authorized by the sealing order, until August 10, 2023. The extension was intended to give defendants an opportunity to seek a stay from the Court of Appeals. The order terminated ECF 806.