St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company v. Vendini, Inc.

Filing 14

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE MOTION TO SEAL 8 (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 10/22/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

ST. PAUL FIRE AND MARINE INSURANCE
COMPANY,

11
12
13
14

Plaintiff,

Case No. CV 13-04458 SI
ORDER DENYING WITHOUT
PREJUDICE MOTION TO SEAL

v.
VENDINI, INC.,
Defendant.

/

15
16

On September 26, 2013, plaintiff St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company (“St. Paul”) filed

17

a complaint for declaratory judgment and reimbursement against Defendant Vendini, Inc. (“Vendini”).

18

Docket No. 1. In the complaint, St. Paul requests a judgment declaring that its has no duty to defend

19

and no duty to indemnify Vendini under insurance policy no. ZLP-11R18933-12-I4 with respect to

20

certain matters. See id.

21

By the present motion, St. Paul moves to seal portions of its complaint. St. Paul argues that the

22

portions of its complaint should be sealed because those portions have been designated as privileged and

23

confidential by Vendini. Docket No. at 1-2. St. Paul also argues that its request to seal is narrowly

24

tailored to seal only those portions of the complaint containing sealable matter. Id. at 1.

25

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

26

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

27

Auto. Ins., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003). When applying to file documents under seal in

28

connection with a dispositive motion, the submitting party bears the burden of “articulating compelling
reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the general history of access and the public

1

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

2

Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178-79 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal quotations

3

and citations omitted). However, when a party seeks to seal documents attached to a non-dispositive

4

motion, a showing of “good cause” under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) is sufficient. Id., 447

5

F.3d at 1179-80; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). In addition, all requests to file under seal must be

6

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

7

Former Civil Local Rule 79-5(b).
“The Ninth Circuit has not explicitly stated the standard—good cause or compelling

9

reasons—that applies to the sealing of a complaint, but this Court and other courts have held that the

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

8

compelling reasons standard applies because a complaint is the foundation of a lawsuit.” In re Google

11

Inc. Gmail Litig., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 138910, at *10-11 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 25, 2013) (collecting

12

cases). Therefore, St. Paul bears the burden of “articulating compelling reasons supported by specific

13

factual findings that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure,

14

such as the public interest in understanding the judicial process.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178-79.

15

In support of its motion to seal, St. Paul has only provided the Court with a declaration stating

16

that Vendini’s counsel “Ms. Harris [has] stated that certain portions of St. Paul’s complaint contained

17

references to privileged and confidential material.” Docket No. 8-1, Celebrezze Decl. ¶ 2. However,

18

“[s]imply mentioning a general category of privilege, without any further elaboration or any specific

19

linkage with the documents, does not satisfy the burden” of articulating compelling reasons. Kamakana,

20

447 F.3d at 1184. Therefore, St. Paul has failed to meet its burden of articulating compelling reasons

21

for sealing portions of the complaint.

22

Accordingly, the Court DENIES St. Paul’s administrative motion to seal portions of its

23

complaint. Docket No. 8. This denial is without prejudice to St. Paul refiling the motion and supporting

24

declaration, no later than November 1, 2013, in a format which is narrowly tailored and demonstrates

25

“compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the general history of access

26
27
28
2

1

and the public policies favoring disclosure, such as the public interest in understanding the judicial

2

process.”1 Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178-79.

3
4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5
Dated: October 22, 2013
6

SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge

7
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

The Court reminds the parties that Northern District of California Civil Local Rule 79-5
governing the filing of documents under seal was amended effective October 1, 2013.
3