Brit Syndicates Limited et al v. Western Catholic Insurance Company, Risk Retention Group, Inc.

Filing 29

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS 15 AND ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL 2 . Signed by Judge Vince Chhabria on 5/11/2018. (vclc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/11/2018)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRIT SYNDICATES LIMITED, et al.,

Case No. 18-cv-00279-VC

Plaintiffs,
v.
WESTERN CATHOLIC INSURANCE
COMPANY, RISK RETENTION GROUP,
INC.,

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
DISMISS AND ADMINISTRATIVE
MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL
Re: Dkt. Nos. 2, 15, 17

Defendant.

1. Western Catholic Insurance Company's motion to dismiss is denied. Brit Syndicates
and Old Republic Union Insurance Company have adequately alleged each of their causes of
action. Western Catholic's arguments in support of its motion to dismiss are more appropriate
for summary judgment, in part because the questions of coverage, the interpretation of the
policies, the adequacy of the notice to Western Catholic, and the scope of the release of claims in
the settlement agreement may merit further discovery. If any party wishes to file an early
summary judgment motion, it may propose an appropriate briefing schedule at the case
management conference on May 15, 2018.
2. The plaintiffs' sealing request is denied. The sealing request is problematic in several
respects. First, the request does not comply with paragraph 21 of this Court's Civil Standing
Order. Namely, the sealing request does not explain why this material is sealable under the
standard set forth in Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1099 (9th Cir.
2016). Furthermore, the plaintiffs' attempt to justify why this material should be sealed is
inadequate. Simply pointing to a confidentiality provision in a settlement agreement is not

enough. Nor is it sufficient to assert that "disclosure may prejudice [the policyholder's] right to
enforce the confidentiality provision of the agreement." Administrative Motion to File Under
Seal at 3 (Dkt. No. 2). The plaintiffs must provide specific reasons why, apart from the
confidentiality provision, portions of the settlement agreement and complaint should be sealed.
It is often especially inappropriate to seal the complaint, and in this case, it is difficult to imagine
that all of these materials could justifiably be sealed if the school community was informed about
the underlying events. See In re Hewlett-Packard Co. Shareholder Derivative Litig., No. 12-cv06003-CRB, Dkt. No. 411 (N.D. Cal. July 28, 2015).
The plaintiffs may file a renewed sealing request within 14 days. The plaintiffs must also
immediately serve this order on all parties to the settlement agreement, so that they have an
opportunity to object to any information being unsealed. Any response to the sealing request
must be filed within 4 days of the sealing motion being filed. Failure to file a properly narrowed
and justified sealing request may result in sanctions.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 11, 2018
______________________________________
VINCE CHHABRIA
United States District Judge

2