Stout v. Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Company et al

Filing 55

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFFS 46 MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/4/2012)

1
2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

4
5

KATHLEEN A. STOUT,

6

Plaintiff,

7
8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

No. CV 11-6186 CW

v.
HARTFORD LIFE AND ACCIDENT INS.
CO., AMAZON.COM HOLDINGS, INC.
LONG TERM DISABILITY PLAN, and
DOES 1-20,

ORDER GRANTING IN
PART PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO FILE
UNDER SEAL (Docket
No. 46)

Defendants.
________________________________/

12
On November 15, 2012, Plaintiff Kathleen Stout filed an
13
administrative motion seeking permission to file under seal
14
Exhibits C through F of Brian Kim’s declaration in support of her
15
Rule 52 motion for judgment.

Defendants, Hartford Life and

16
Accident Insurance Company and Amazon.com Holdings, Inc. Long Term
17
Disability Plan, who designated these documents as confidential,
18
have submitted declarations in support of Plaintiff’s motion to
19
seal.

Having reviewed the parties’ papers, the Court now grants

20
the motion in part and denies it in part.

In addition, the Court

21
approves Plaintiff’s proposed redactions to her motion for
22
judgment and to her proposed findings of fact and conclusions of
23
law.
24
DISCUSSION
25
The Ninth Circuit has held that where a party seeks to file
26
documents under seal in connection with a dispositive motion, the
27
moving party must demonstrate compelling reasons to seal the
28

1

documents.

2

1178–79 (9th Cir. 2006).

3

must articulate compelling reasons supported by specific factual

4

findings that outweigh the general history of access and the

5

public policies favoring disclosure, such as the public interest

6

in understanding the judicial process.”

7

citations and alterations omitted).

8

conscientiously balance the competing interests of the public and

9

the party who seeks to keep certain judicial records secret.”

Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172,
“The party requesting the sealing order

Id. at 1178–79 (internal

“In turn, the court must

Id.

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

at 1179 (internal citations and alterations omitted).

11

fact that the production of records may lead to a litigant’s

12

embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further litigation

13

will not, without more, compel the court to seal its records.”

14

Id. (citing Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d

15

1122, 1136 (9th Cir. 2003)).

16

“The mere

Here, Plaintiff seeks to file under seal several documents in

17

connection with her motion for judgment.

18

designated the documents at issue as confidential, they have filed

19

declarations seeking to establish that the documents are sealable

20

pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79–5(d).

21

address each of these documents and Defendants’ proffered

22

justifications for sealing them.

Because Defendants

The following sections

23

A.

24

First, the parties seek to seal Exhibit C to Brian Kim’s

Kim Declaration, Exhibit C

25

declaration in support of Plaintiff’s motion for judgment.

26

Exhibit C consists of the entire policy and procedure manual for

27

Hartford’s “GBD Special Investigations Unit.”

28

is prominently labeled “Proprietary & Confidential,” essentially
2

This manual, which

1

sets forth the company’s protocols for investigating and reporting

2

insurance fraud by its policyholders.

3

manual contains information that, if made public, “would work to

4

Hartford’s commercial and competitive disadvantage” by allowing

5

competitors to adopt Hartford’s investigative procedures.

6

Declaration of Yvonne S. Bretz ¶ 3.

7

manual includes information about vendors with whom Hartford

8

contracts to provide certain claims services, competitors could

9

use it to “solicit business away from Hartford” or gain a

Defendants contend that the

Additionally, because the

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

“competitive edge in marketing.”

11

Defendants have implemented various internal safeguards to protect

12

against the manual’s disclosure.

13

manual itself, the Court finds that Defendants have established

14

compelling reasons for sealing the manual.

Id.

For all of these reasons,

Id. ¶ 5.

Having reviewed the

15

B.

16

The parties next seek to seal Exhibit D to the Kim

Kim Declaration, Exhibit D

17

declaration.

18

performance evaluations of one of its employees.

19

contend that this document is confidential and should be sealed in

20

its entirety to protect the employee’s privacy.

21

Jeffrey O’Polka ¶¶ 8-9.

22

privacy interests justify shielding their performance evaluations

23

from public view.

24

1203980, at *11 (D. Md.) (granting motion to seal “sensitive

25

personnel records”), with Lown v. Salvation Army, Inc., 2012 WL

26

4888534, at *2 (S.D.N.Y.) (holding that an employee’s “privacy

27

interests are entitled to significant weight in the balancing

28

against the public’s right to access” but those interests are not

Exhibit D consists of excerpts of Hartford’s
Defendants

Declaration of

Courts are split on whether employees’

Compare Butler v. DirectSAT USA, LLC, 2012 WL

3

1

sufficiently compelling to justify sealing the employee’s

2

performance reviews).

3

evaluations are largely positive and, to the extent Plaintiff

4

relies on them, it is principally to establish the reviewer’s

5

conduct -- not to impugn or embarrass the employee.

6

the employee’s privacy interests, standing alone, are insufficient

7

to justify sealing the performance evaluations.

8
9

Here, the employee’s performance

Accordingly,

Hartford also contends that the performance evaluations
should be sealed because they contain sensitive and proprietary

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

information regarding the company’s performance criteria and

11

investigation guidelines.

12

that these concerns could be addressed simply by redacting some of

13

the specific figures cited in the evaluations to document employee

14

performance over time.

15

compelling interest in shielding the following numbers from

16

disclosure: individual and peer-group averages for MCM referral

17

rates (cited on pages 1862, 1865, 1875), Investigator referrals

18

per month (1865, 1875), cases accepted per month (1858, 1865,

19

1867, 1875), proactives accepted per month (1875), companion

20

waivers accepted per month (1875), referrals accepted per month

21

(1875), and the total number of accepted and closed cases per year

22

(1875).

23

evaluations that can reasonably be deemed sensitive.

24

the document simply relies on generic performance indicators to

25

assess the employee and compare him to his peers.

O’Polka Decl. ¶¶ 8-9.

The Court finds

In particular, Defendants have a

These are the only aspects of the excerpted performance
The rest of

26

Accordingly, the Court finds that Defendants have only

27

established compelling reasons to seal certain parts of the

28

performance evaluations, as specified above.
4

1

C.

2

Finally, the parties seek to seal Exhibits E and F of the Kim

Kim Declaration, Exhibits E-F

declaration.

4

responses to Plaintiff’s first set of interrogatories while

5

Exhibit F consists of Hartford’s “Independent Medical Consultant

6

Services Agreement” with the University Disability Consortium

7

(UDC).

8

confidential and proprietary information about the “cost and

9

manner” in which Hartford secures its medical reviews through its

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

3

medical vendors and physicians and “how those materials are used

11

to evaluate claims.”

12

Hartford’s competitors could use this information to adjust their

13

own contracts with vendors and physicians, thus undermining

14

Hartford’s ability to compete.

15

documents, the Court finds that Defendants have established

16

compelling reasons for sealing Hartford’s contract with UDC and

17

its supplemental responses to Plaintiff’s first set of

18

interrogatories.

19

litigants may file under seal their contracts with third parties

20

that contain proprietary and confidential business information.

21

See Power Tech., Inc. v. Tessera, Inc., 2012 WL 3283421, at *1

22

(N.D. Cal.).

Defendants contend that both of these documents contain

23
24

Exhibit E consists of Hartford’s supplemental

O’Polka Decl. ¶ 7.

Id.

They note that

After reviewing the

This Court has previously recognized that

CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff’s motion to file

25

under seal (Docket No. 46) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

26

The Court GRANTS Plaintiff leave to file under seal Exhibits C, E,

27

and F to Brian Kim’s declaration in support of Plaintiff’s motion

28

for judgment.

Within three days of this order, Plaintiff shall
5

1

redact Exhibit D in a manner consistent with this order and shall

2

file it in the public record.

3

public record the redacted versions of her motion for judgment and

4

of her proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law.

5

unredacted versions of Plaintiff’s motion for judgment and

6

proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law shall be filed

7

under seal.

8

Plaintiff shall also file in the

The

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

Dated: 12/4/2012

CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6