William Jeffrey Burnett et al v. Conseco Life Insurance Company et al

Filing 36

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL. This denial is without prejudice to the parties refiling the motion and supporting declaration no later than February 13, 2015.(Illston, Susan) (Filed on 2/5/2015) Modified on 2/6/2015 (ysS, COURT STAFF).

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

WILLIAM JEFFREY BURNETT, et al.,

Case No. 12-cv-05906-SI

Plaintiffs,
8
v.
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

CONSECO LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY, et al.,

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE
UNDER SEAL

Defendants.

12
13

Currently before the Court is plaintiffs’ Administrative Motion to File Under Seal

14

documents in connection with its opposition to defendants’ motion to dismiss. Docket No. 650.

15

Plaintiff has submitted the declaration of plaintiffs’ counsel Derek Sugimura in support of the

16

motion to file under seal. Docket No. 650-2. The Sugimura declaration states that defendants, the

17

designating parties, have identified the documents “Confidential.” Id. at 1.

18

With the exception of a narrow range of documents that are “traditionally kept secret,”

19

courts begin their sealing analysis with “a strong presumption in favor of access.” Foltz v. State

20

Farm Mut. Auto. Ins., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003). “Reference to a stipulation or a

21

blanket protective order that allows a party to designate certain documents as confidential is not

22

sufficient to establish that a document, or portions thereof, are sealable.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(A).

23

When applying to file documents under seal in connection with a dispositive motion, the party

24

seeking to seal must articulate “compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that

25

outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure, such as the

26

public interest in understanding the judicial process.” Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu,

27

447 F.3d 1172, 1178-79 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal quotations and citations omitted). Where a party

28

seeks to seal documents attached to a non-dispositive motion, a showing of “good cause” under

1

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) is sufficient. Id. at 1179-80; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c).

2

In addition, all requests to file under seal must be “narrowly tailored,” such that only sealable

3

information is sought to be redacted from public access. Civ. L.R. 79-5(b).

4

The plaintiffs’ supporting declaration does not demonstrate that the submitted documents,

5

in their entirety, should be filed under seal. Mr. Sugimura’s declaration provides no justification

6

for sealing except that the defendants have designated the documents as confidential pursuant to

7

the agreement between the parties and the protective order. The fact that the parties agreed among

8

themselves to keep these documents private, without more, is no reason to shield the information

9

from the public at large.

10

Further, defendants—the designating parties—failed to submit a

declaration establishing that the designated material is sealable. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Accordingly, the Court hereby DENIES the motion to file under seal. This denial is

12

without prejudice to the parties refiling the motion and supporting declaration no later than

13

February 13, 2015, in a format that is narrowly tailored and demonstrates “compelling reasons

14

supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the general history of access and the public

15

policies favoring disclosure, such as the public interest in understanding the judicial process.”

16

Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178-79. The unredacted version of the documents sought to be filed

17

under seal must indicate, by highlighting or other clear method, the portions of the document that

18

have been omitted from the redacted version. Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(D).

19
20
21
22
23
24

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 5, 2015
______________________________________
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge

25
26
27
28
2