Scottsdale Insurance Company v. Hudson Specialty Insurance Company

Filing 88

ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFFS ADMINISTRATIVE 62 MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL.(ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/6/2017)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

SCOTTSDALE INSURANCE COMPANY,

Case No. 15-cv-02896-HSG

Plaintiff,
8
v.
9
HUDSON SPECIALTY INSURANCE
COMPANY,

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE
UNDER SEAL

Defendant.

Re: Dkt. No. 62

12

Pending before the Court is an administrative motion to file under seal documents relating

13

to Plaintiff Scottsdale Insurance Company’s (“Plaintiff”) motion for summary judgment (“MSJ”).

14

See Dkt. Nos. 62, 63. The motion to file under seal is unopposed. Having carefully considered

15

each of the requested redactions, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the

16

administrative motion to file under seal.

17

I.

LEGAL STANDARD

18

Courts generally apply a “compelling reasons” standard when considering motions to seal

19

documents. Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2010). “This standard

20

derives from the common law right ‘to inspect and copy public records and documents, including

21

judicial records and documents.’” Id. (quoting Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d

22

1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006)). “[A] strong presumption in favor of access is the starting point.”

23

Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). To overcome this

24

strong presumption, the moving party must “articulate compelling reasons supported by specific

25

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

26

disclosure, such as the public interest in understanding the judicial process.” Id. at 1178-79

27

(citations, internal quotation marks, and alterations omitted). “In general, compelling reasons

28

sufficient to outweigh the public’s interest in disclosure and justify sealing court records exist

1

when such court files might have become a vehicle for improper purposes, such as the use of

2

records to gratify private spite, promote public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release

3

trade secrets.” Id. at 1179 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). The Court must

4

“balance the competing interests of the public and the party who seeks to keep certain judicial

5

records secret. After considering these interests, if the Court decides to seal certain judicial

6

records, it must base its decision on a compelling reason and articulate the factual basis for its

7

ruling, without relying on hypothesis or conjecture.” Id. (citations, brackets, and internal

8

quotation marks omitted).
Civil Local Rule 79-5 supplements the “compelling reasons” standard. The party seeking

9

to file under seal must “establish[ ] that the document, or portions thereof, are privileged,

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law . . . . The request

12

must be narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material . . . .” Civ. L.R. 79-5(b).

13

Finally, records attached to motions that are only “tangentially related to the merits of a

14

case” are not subject to the strong presumption of access. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp.,

15

LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1101 (9th Cir. 2016). Accordingly, parties moving to seal such records must

16

meet the lower “good cause” standard of Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Id. at

17

1097. The “good cause” standard requires a “particularized showing” that “specific prejudice or

18

harm will result” if the information is disclosed. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors

19

Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); see

20

also Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c).

21
22

II.

DISCUSSION
Here, the Court applies the “compelling reasons” standard because Plaintiff’s MSJ has

23

more than a tangential relation to the merits of the case. See Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at

24

1101. The Court rules as follows:

25

//

26

//

27

//

28

//
2

Motion
62

Document
MSJ, Ex. M

GRANTED

3

62
62
62

MSJ, Ex. P
MSJ, Ex. Q
MSJ, Ex. R

GRANTED
GRANTED
GRANTED

4

62

MSJ, Ex. S

GRANTED

5

62

MSJ, Ex. T

GRANTED

6

62

MSJ, Ex. U

GRANTED

7

62
62

MSJ, Ex. V
MSJ, Ex. W

DENIED
GRANTED

62
62

MSJ, Ex. Y
MSJ, Memorandum of Points
and Authorities

GRANTED
GRANTED as to 6:1-8, 6:1928, 7:1-10, 7:13-19, 7:21-28,
8:1, 8:6-11, 8:13-22, 9:3-14,
9:17-20, 10:11-18, 18:1-5,
18:7-8, 18:12-18

1
2

Ruling

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

III.

Reason
Attorney-Client Privilege and
Attorney Work Product
Attorney Work Product
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-Client Privilege and
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-Client Privilege and
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-Client Privilege and
Attorney Work Product
Attorney-Client Privilege and
Attorney Work Product
No Declaration in Support
Attorney-Client Privilege and
Attorney Work Product
Confidential Settlement Information
Attorney-Client Privilege, Attorney
Work Product, and/or Confidential
Settlement Information

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART

14

Plaintiff’s administrative motion to file under seal the specified documents. Pursuant to Civil

15

Local Rule 79-5(f), Exhibit V to Plaintiff’s MSJ will not be considered by the Court unless

16

Plaintiff files an unredacted version of the document that comports with the above ruling within 7

17

days. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(f).

18
19
20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: 3/6/2017
______________________________________
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3