Paul Evert's RV Country, Inc. et al v. Universal Underwriters Insurance Company

Filing 64

ORDER signed by Senior Judge William B. Shubb on 8/5/2016 DENYING 60 Defendant's Request to File Documents Under Seal and DENYING 63 Plaintiffs' Notice of Request to Seal Document(s). (See document for further details.) (Kirksey Smith, K)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

----oo0oo----

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

PAUL EVERT’S RV COUNTRY,
INC.; PAUL EVERT; and CHARLES
CURTIS,
Plaintiffs,

CIV. NO. 1:15-00124 WBS SKO
ORDER RE: PLAINTIFFS’ AND
DEFENDANT’S REQUESTS TO SEAL

v.
UNIVERSAL UNDERWRITERS
INSURANCE COMPANY; and DOES
1-25, inclusive,
Defendant.

19
20

AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS.

21
22
23

----oo0oo---Plaintiffs Paul Evert’s RV Country, Inc., Paul Evert,

24

and Charles Curtis initiated this suit against defendant

25

Universal Underwriters Insurance Company alleging a breach of

26

defendant’s duty to defend and indemnify.

27

filed cross-claims for declaratory relief.

28
1

Defendant subsequently
Presently before the

1

court is defendant’s request, with the stipulation of plaintiffs,

2

to file its motion for summary judgment, reply papers, and all

3

exhibits under seal, (Docket No. 60), and plaintiffs’ request to

4

file their notice of motion and motion for partial summary

5

judgment and all supporting papers under seal, (Docket No. 63).

6

A party seeking to seal a judicial record bears the

7

burden of overcoming a strong presumption in favor of public

8

access.

9

1178 (9th Cir. 2006).

Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172,
The party must “articulate compelling

10

reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the

11

general history of access and the public policies favoring

12

disclosure, such as the public interest in understanding the

13

judicial process.”

14

on a request to seal, the court must balance the competing

15

interests of the public and the party seeking to keep records

16

secret.

Id. at 1178-79 (citation omitted).

In ruling

Id. at 1179.

17

The parties both contend their cross-summary judgment

18

materials should be sealed pursuant to the parties’ Stipulation

19

and Protective Order Regarding Confidential Information signed by

20

Magistrate Judge Oberto.

21

(Docket No. 63).)

22

prior motions to stay discovery and trial in the present action

23

pending the outcome of the appeal in the underlying state court

24

action because it believed the stipulated protective order would

25

sufficiently preserve confidentiality.

(Def.’s Req. to Seal

26

(“Def.’s Req.”) at 3 (Docket No. 60).)

The parties have

27

stipulated that all depositions and a significant percentage of

28

the documents produced during discovery are confidential under

(Pls.’ Req. to Seal (“Pls.’ Req.”) at 3

Defendant contends that it opposed plaintiffs’

2

1

the protective order.

2

a confidentiality agreement between the parties does not per se

3

constitute a compelling reason to seal documents that outweighs

4

the interests of public disclosure and access.

5

Order at 2, Starbucks Corp. v. Amcor Packaging Distrib., Civ. No.

6

2:13-1754; Sept. 3, 2015 Order at 3, Foster Poultry Farms, Inc.

7

v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London, Civ. No. 1:14-00953;

8

Sept. 18, 2015 Order at 2, Rosales v. City of Chico, Civ. No.

9

2:14-02152.

10
11

This court has previously pointed out that

See Oct. 8, 2014

The fact that the assigned magistrate judge signed

the stipulated protective order does not change this principle.
The parties also argue that their requests to seal

12

should be granted because the relevant material is protected by

13

the “tripartite attorney-client relationship” between the

14

insured, insurer, and the attorney hired by the insurer to

15

represent the insured in the underlying state action.

16

Req. at 7.)

17

that note that when an attorney is engaged and paid by the

18

insurer to defend the insured, “each member of the trio,

19

attorney, client-insured, and client-insurer has corresponding

20

rights and obligations founded largely on contract, and as to the

21

attorney, by the Rules of Professional Conduct as well.”

22

Mut. Liab. Ins. Co. v. Superior Ct., 38 Cal. App. 3d 579, 592 (3d

23

Dist. 1974).

24

the insured’s defense attorney, the insured, and the insurer.

25

Id.; Gulf Ins. Co. v. Berger, Kahn, Shafton, Moss, Figler, Simon

26

& Gladstone, 79 Cal. App. 4th 114, 126 (2d Dist. 2000).

27

parties contend that the cross-summary judgment materials must be

28

sealed in order to preserve the confidentiality of all attorney-

(Pls.’

Plaintiffs cite two California Court of Appeal cases

Am.

An attorney-client relationship can exist between

3

The

1

client communications either party had with counsel and

2

information disclosed during discovery.

3

confidentiality is of particular importance in this case,

4

defendant argues, because the third-party plaintiff in the

5

underlying state court action could potentially make use of

6

privileged information in the event of a retrial of the

7

underlying state court matter.

8

The preservation of

(Def.’s Req. at 3.)

While there may be an attorney-client privilege between

9

plaintiffs, defendant, and plaintiffs’ counsel and certain

10

portions of the summary judgment material may therefore be

11

protected by the attorney-client privilege, this is not a

12

compelling reason to order a blanket seal of all summary judgment

13

briefing and supporting papers.

14

does not even merit serious consideration.

15

public policies favoring disclosure to the public and the media,

16

the requests will accordingly be denied.

17

without prejudice to the parties’ getting serious and refiling

18

more tailored requests to seal specific privileged portions of

19

the material or to redact certain privileged lines.

20

Such an overly broad request
Given the important

The denial will be

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiffs’ and

21

defendant’s requests to seal (Docket Nos. 60, 63) be, and the

22

same hereby are, DENIED without prejudice.

23

Dated:

August 5, 2016

24
25
26
27
28
4