(PS) Pearson v. Icanotes-EHR, 2:20-cv-01720

Pro se plaintiff Nicole Pearson filed a December 18, 2020 motion asking the court to seal “all documents pertaining to this court case,” including judicial proceedings.
The court applied the strong presumption of public access to court records and the Ninth Circuit standards requiring "compelling reasons" (or "good cause" for tangential material) to justify sealing.
Local Rule 141 requires a Request to Seal to state the authority for sealing, duration, who may access the documents, and other relevant details; Pearson’s filing did not comply.
Pearson also submitted various medical records with the sealing motion. The court struck that filing out of an abundance of caution and ordered the documents returned.
The sealing motion was denied without prejudice because Pearson failed to make the necessary showing and failed to comply with Local Rule 141.
Pearson had previously been given leave to file an amended complaint and did not do so; the court warned that failure to amend may lead to a recommendation of dismissal for lack of prosecution.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court should seal all case documents and judicial proceedings	Pearson asked the court to seal all documents and proceedings (sought broad secrecy)	No responsive argument in the record	Denied; sealing all materials preemptively not justified; must meet Ninth Circuit standards and LR 141 requirements
Whether the medical records filed with the motion should remain on the docket	Pearson filed medical records along with the sealing request (implied need for confidentiality)	No responsive argument in the record	Stricken and returned to Pearson; may refile publicly or renew a proper sealing request
Whether failure to file an amended complaint warrants further action	Pearson has not filed an amended complaint despite prior 28‑day leave to amend	No responsive argument in the record	Court warned that failure to file may result in recommendation of dismissal for lack of prosecution

Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092 (9th Cir. 2016) (presumption of access and sealing standards)
Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2003) (standards for sealing civil discovery and court records)
Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2006) ("compelling reasons" standard for sealing dispositive materials)
United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044 (2d Cir. 1995) (public access rationale and accountability in judicial proceedings)