Polnicky v. Liberty Life Assurance Company of Boston et al

Filing 49

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO SEAL 46 (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 4/18/2014)

1
2
3
4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
No. C 13-1478 SI

STEVEN POLNICKY,
8

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO SEAL

Plaintiff,

9
v.

LIBERTY LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY OF
BOSTON; WELLS FARGO & COMPANY
LONG TERM DISABILITY PLAN,
Defendants.

/

14
A bench trial in the above matter is currently scheduled for June 9, 2014 at 10:00 a.m. In
15
advance of the bench trial, defendants move to file under seal certain documents that will be filed along
16
with plaintiff’s Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52 cross-motion for judgment. Docket No. 46. Plaintiff
17
does not oppose defendants’ request to file the documents under seal. Docket No. 46-4.
18
With the exception of a narrow range of documents that are “traditionally kept secret,” courts
19
begin their sealing analysis with “a strong presumption in favor of access.” Foltz v. State Farm Mut.
20
Auto. Ins., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003). When applying to file documents under seal in
21
connection with a dispositive motion, the submitting party bears the burden of “articulating compelling
22
reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the general history of access and the public
23
policies favoring disclosure, such as the public interest in understanding the judicial process.”
24
Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178-79 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal quotations
25
and citations omitted). However, when a party seeks to seal documents attached to a non-dispositive
26
motion, a showing of “good cause” under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) is sufficient. Id. at
27
1179-80; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). In addition, all requests to file under seal must be “narrowly
28

1

tailored,” such that only sealable information is sought to be redacted from public access. Civil Local

2

Rule 79-5(b). Because a motion for judgment is a dispositive motion, defendants must satisfy the

3

“compelling reasons” standard.
The documents that defendants move to have filed under seal are portions of Liberty Life’s 2004-

5

2005 Claims and Training Manuals. Defendants argue that these documents should be filed under seal

6

because they are confidential, proprietary, commercially sensitive, and are trade secrets of Liberty Life.

7

Docket No. 46-2 McGee Decl. ¶¶ 3-4. Defendants further argue that the public dissemination of this

8

information would cause Liberty Life economic and competitive harm. Id. Numerous district courts

9

have found that an “insurer’s claims-handling guidelines are trade secrets.” Haldiman v. Cont’l Cas.

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

4

Co., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18386, at *7-8 (D. Ariz. Feb. 13, 2014); see, e.g., Fay Ave. Props., LLC v.

11

Travelers Prop. & Cas. Co. of Am., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46185, at *11 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 2, 2014);

12

Takata v. Hartford Comprehensive Emple. Benefit Serv. Co., 283 F.R.D. 617, 621-22 (E.D. Wash.

13

2012). “Trade secrets are a unique type of property because the owner’s interest is compromised by

14

public disclosure of the secret. If the trade secret becomes generally known, that property right

15

‘extinguishes.’” Takata, 283 F.R.D. at 621 (citing Carpenter v. United States, 484 U.S. 19, 26 (1987)).

16

Therefore, the Court concludes that defendants have articulated sufficient compelling reasons for sealing

17

the documents at issue, and defendants’ request for sealing is narrowly tailored. Accordingly, the Court

18

GRANTS defendants’ motion to file under seal. Docket No. 46.

19
20

IT IS SO ORDERED.

21
22

Dated: April 18, 2014
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge

23
24
25
26
27
28
2