Jones v. Colorado Casualty Insurance Company et al

Filing 183

ORDER granting 180 Motion to Seal. The Clerk shall seal Exhibits A through E to Defendant's original Motion in Limine No. 10 which is currently filed at Docket 153 . FURTHER ORDERED denying as moot 153 Motion in Limine. FURTHER ORDERED That Plaintiff's Response to Defendant's Motion in Limine No. 10 (Doc. 176 ) will remain as his response to Defendant's newly-filed Motion in Limine No. 10 (Doc. 182 ). Signed by Senior Judge James A Teilborg on 9/24/15.(MAP)

Download PDF
1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Anthony H. Jones, No. CV-12-01968-PHX-JAT Plaintiff, 10 11 v. 12 ORDER Colorado Casualty Insurance Company, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 Pending before the Court is Defendant Colorado Casualty Insurance Company 16 (“Defendant”)’s Motion to Seal Exhibits A through E to its Motion in Limine No. 10 17 Filed at Docket No. 153. (Doc. 180). Defendant contemporaneously filed a new Motion 18 in Limine No. 10 with redacted versions of the exhibits attached. (Doc. 182). The Court 19 now rules on the motion. 20 I. Legal Standard 21 The Ninth Circuit treats judicial records attached to dispositive motions differently 22 from records attached to non-dispositive motions. See Kamakana v. City & Cty. of 23 Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006) (“The public policies that support the 24 right of access to dispositive motions, and related materials, do not apply with equal force 25 to non-dispositive materials.” (citation omitted)). Specifically, while a party who seeks to 26 seal documents attached to a dispositive motion must meet the rigorous “compelling 27 reason” standard, “a ‘good cause’ showing under [Federal Rule of Civil Procedure] 26(c) 28 will suffice to keep sealed records attached to non-dispositive motions.” Id. at 1180 1 (citation omitted). The “good cause” standard requires a “particularized showing” that 2 “specific prejudice or harm will result” if the information is disclosed. Phillips ex rel. 3 Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210–11 (9th Cir. 2002) (quotation 4 omitted). 5 II. Analysis 6 On August 12, 2015, Defendant filed its tenth motion in limine accompanied by 7 five exhibits. Defendant asserts that it inadvertently filed versions of the exhibits that 8 fully disclosed Plaintiff’s social security number and date of birth. Federal Rule of Civil 9 Procedure (“Rule”) 5.2 requires parties to redact all but the last four numbers of an 10 individual’s social security number and all but the year of an individual’s birth in an 11 electronic or paper filing. Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2(a). The Court finds that Defendant’s failure 12 to redact Plaintiff’s personally identifiable information as required by Rule 5.2 meets the 13 “good cause” standard. 14 Accordingly, 15 IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Seal (Doc. 180) is granted. The 16 Clerk shall seal Exhibits A through E to Defendant’s original Motion in Limine No. 10 17 which is currently filed at Docket 153. 18 19 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s original Motion in Limine No. 10 (Doc. 153) is denied as moot. 20 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant’s Motion in 21 Limine No. 10 (Doc. 176) will remain as his response to Defendant’s newly-filed Motion 22 in Limine No. 10 (Doc. 182). 23 Dated this 24th day of September, 2015. 24 25 26 27 28 -2-

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?