Dameron Hospital Association v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company

Filing 45

ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 6/7/12 ORDERING Defendant has not satisfied the "compelling reasons" standard, its sealing request is denied. (Becknal, R)

1
2
3
4
5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8
9

DAMERON HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION, a
California Non-Profit
Association,
Plaintiff,

10
11

v.

12

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE
INSURANCE COMPANY,

13

Defendant.
________________________________

14

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

2:10-cv-03396-GEB-JFM
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S
REQUEST TO FILE DOCUMENTS
UNDER SEAL

15

On June 4, 2012, Defendant filed on the public docket a

16

“Notice of Request to Seal Documents” (“notice”). Defendant states in

17

its notice that it seeks to file the following documents under seal,

18

which it argues support its opposition to Plaintiff’s summary judgment

19

motion: Exhibits 31, 32, and 33; and “Additional Fact Nos. 55-59” of its

20

Statement of Disputed and Additional Facts. On the same date, Defendant

21

emailed its “Request to Seal Documents” (“sealing request”) and copies

22

of the documents it seeks to file under seal to the Court for in camera

23

consideration of its sealing request.

24

Defendant

argues

that

“Exhibit

‘31’

is

a

portion

of

25

[Plaintiff’s] provider agreement with Kaiser[;] . . . Exhibit ‘32’ is a

26

portion of the Northern California HMO Provider Manual[;] . . .[and]

27

Exhibit ‘33’ is a portion of [Plaintiff’s] provider agreement with Blue

28

Cross[.]” (Def.’s Req. to Seal Docs. 2:10-16.) Defendant argues these

1

1

exhibits should be filed under seal because the documents contained

2

therein “were designated as ‘Confidential’ by either [Plaintiff] and/or

3

Kaiser, and [were] produced subject to [a] Protective Order.” Id. 2:17-

4

18. Defendant also argues “Additional Fact Nos. 55-59” should be filed

5

under seal because they “cite to . . . portion[s] of Exhibits ‘31,’ ‘32’

6

and ‘33[.]’” Id. 2:18-19.

7
8

“Two standards generally govern motions to seal documents[.]”
Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 677 (9th Cir. 2010).

9

13

[J]udicial records attached to dispositive motions
[are treated] differently from records attached to
non-dispositive motions. Those who seek to maintain
the secrecy of documents attached to dispositive
motions must meet the high threshold of showing
that “compelling reasons” support secrecy. A “good
cause” showing under Rule 26(c) will suffice to
keep sealed records attached to non-dispositive
motions.

14

Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1180 (9th Cir.

15

2006) (internal citations omitted).

10
11
12

16

“[A] strong presumption of access to judicial records applies

17

fully to dispositive pleadings, including motions for summary judgment

18

and related attachments[,] . . . because the resolution of a dispute on

19

the merits, whether by trial or summary judgment, is at the heart of the

20

interest in ensuring the ‘public’s understanding of the judicial process

21

and of significant public events.’” Id. at 1179 (citation omitted).

22

“Thus, ‘compelling reasons’ must be shown to seal judicial records

23

attached to a dispositive motion . . . even if the dispositive motion,

24

or its attachments[] were previously filed under seal or protective

25

order.”

26

Defendant seeks to file under seal support its opposition to Plaintiff’s

27

summary judgment motion, the “compelling reasons” standard applies to

28

its sealing request.

Id.

(citation

omitted).

Therefore,

2

because

the

documents

1

Under the “compelling reasons” standard,

2

the party [requesting to file documents under seal]
must articulate compelling reasons supported by
specific factual findings that outweigh the general
history of access and the public policies favoring
disclosure, such as the public interest in
understanding the judicial process.

3
4
5
6

Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178-79 (internal quotation marks, brackets, and

7

citations omitted). Here, Defendant merely relies on the conclusory

8

argument that the documents it seeks to file under seal were marked

9

“confidential” by Plaintiff during discovery and produced under a

10

protective order. (Def.’s Req. to Seal Docs. 2:17-19.) However, “a

11

higher showing is required to deny the public access to the court’s

12

summary judgment records than the mere ‘good cause’ standard at issue

13

during discovery[.]” Cal. ex rel. Lockyer v. Safeway, Inc., 355 F. Supp.

14

2d 1111, 1115 (C.D. Cal. 2005). Since Defendant has not satisfied the

15

“compelling reasons” standard, its sealing request is denied.

16

Dated:

June 7, 2012

17
18
19

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.
United States District Judge

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3