Mayer Hoffman McCann, PC v. CAMICO Mutual Insurance Company

Filing 94

ORDER ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; DENYING ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO FILE UNDER SEAL 78 81 84 . (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 3/20/2017)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

MAYER HOFFMAN MCCANN, P.C.,

10

Plaintiff,
v.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

CAMICO MUTUAL INSURANCE
COMPANY,
Defendant.

14

Case No. 15-cv-01207-SI
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT; DENYING
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO
FILE UNDER SEAL
Re: Dkt. Nos. 78, 81, 84

15
16

On March 17, 2017, the Court held a hearing on defendant’s renewed motion for summary

17

judgment. The Court finds that there are disputes of fact that must be resolved at trial, and

18

accordingly, the Court DENIES defendant’s motion for summary judgment.1

19

In addition, the Court finds that the supplemental declaration filed in support of the

20

administrative motions to seal does not comply with Civil Local Rule 79-5(d)(1)(A).

The

21

supplemental declaration only states generally that the documents at issue − which include all of

22

the 28 exhibits attached to the Compendium of Exhibits − “contain proprietary business

23

information regarding potential mergers as well as confidential financial information.” Dkt. No.

24

89 (Cutbirth Decl.). This declaration does not demonstrate a “particularized showing” of “good

25

cause” why the material should be filed under seal.

See Kamakana v. City and County of

26
1

27
28

The Court previously set aside the judgment and the February 17, 2016 summary
judgment order, and thus all issues relevant to the parties’ claims and counterclaims (including,
inter alia, whether the Reinstatement Endorsement provided illusory coverage and whether the
language of the Endorsement is clear and conspicuous) are in dispute and shall be resolved at trial.

1

Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1180 (9th Cir. 2006) (“Thus, ‘compelling reasons’ must be shown to

2

seal judicial records attached to a dispositive motion. The ‘compelling reasons’ standard is

3

invoked even if the dispositive motion, or its attachments, were previously filed under seal or

4

protective order.”) (internal citation omitted). The Court DENIES the administrative motions to

5

seal, and the parties are directed to file public versions of the material at issue.

6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Dated: March 20, 2017
______________________________________
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2