Dubey v. Concentric Healthcare Solutions LLC et al

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Jenessa Dubey,
Plaintiff,
v.
Concentric Healthcare Solutions LLC, et al.,
Defendants.
No. CV-22-02044-PHX-DJH
ORDER
Plaintiff and Defendants filed a Joint Motion to File under Seal the Parties’ Joint
Motion for Trial Continuance and Expedited Status Conference. (Doc. 137). The parties
state that their Joint Motion for Trial Continuance contains highly sensitive medical
information regarding one of the trial witnesses and, therefore, compelling reasons exist to
allow leave to file the Motion under seal. (Id. at 1–2).
The public has a long-standing, “general right to inspect and copy . . . judicial
records and documents.” Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978). For
this reason, the party seeking to file a document under seal “bears the burden of overcoming
this strong presumption.” Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th
Cir. 2006). To meet this burden, the moving party must supply the court with “compelling
reasons supported by factual findings.” Id. (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins.
Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). Mere allegations of confidentiality, “without
any further elaboration or any specific linkage [to] the documents,” do not satisfy this
burden. Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1184. Additionally, potential risk of “embarrassment,
incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will not, without more, compel the court to
Case 2:22-cv-02044-DJH Document 138 Filed 11/07/25 Page 1 of 2

- 2 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
seal [the] records.” Id. at 1179.
Here, the Joint Motion for Trial Continuance is premised on the private medical
matter of a critical trial witness for both parties. (Doc. 137 at 2). An individual’s private
medical information has been acknowledged as the sort of sensitive information that
warrants sealing. See Domingo v. Brennan, 690 Fed. Appx. 928, 930 (9th Cir. 2017)
(unpublished) (“The district court did not abuse its discretion in granting defendant's
motion to file documents under seal because the documents contained sensitive medical
information.”); see also Gopher Media LLC v. Melone, 2024 WL 2835161, *1 (S.D. Cal.
2024) (finding good cause to seal an individual’s medical record being used to demonstrate
why they were unable to attend a mandatory settlement conference). Further, the witness’s
medical information is not at issue in these proceedings. See Melone, 2024 WL 2835161
at *1. Lastly, no party is opposed to sealing their Joint Motion. Therefore, leave to file
under seal is appropriate here.
However, the parties filed a redacted version of their Joint Motion (Doc. 137-1),
rather than a lodging an unredacted version in accordance with LRCiv. 5.6. Thus, the
parties will need to refile their Joint Motion now that permission to seal has been acquired.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the parties’ Joint Motion to file under Seal (Doc. 137) is
GRANTED. The parties must file an unredacted version of their Joint Motion for Trial
Continuance under seal by 9:00 a.m. on Monday, November 10, 2025.
Dated this 7th day of November, 2025.
Honorable Diane J. Humetewa
United States District Judge
Case 2:22-cv-02044-DJH Document 138 Filed 11/07/25 Page 2 of 2