Wise v. State Farm General Insurance Company

Filing 60

ORDER (as modified) by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. Granting 48 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/6/2024)

1
2
3
4
5

J. Edward Kerley (175695)
Dylan L. Schaffer (153612)
Kerley Schaffer LLP
1939 Harrison Street, #900
Oakland, California 94612
Telephone: [phone]
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

E VERRICK WISE an individual, NOEL
RUSSELL, an individual,

14
15

ORDER (AS MODIFIED) GRANTING
PLAINTIFFS’ ADMINISTRATIVE
MOTION

Plaintiffs,

12
13

Case No. 4:23-cv-00163-HSG

v.
STATE FARM GENERAL INSURANCE
COMPANY, an Illinois corporation, and
DOES 1 through 10,

Dkt. No. 48

Defendants.

16
17

On January 9, 2024, Plaintiffs E Verrick Wise and Noel Russell (“Plaintiffs”) filed an

18
19

Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another Party’s Material Should Be Sealed,

20

accompanied by the supporting declaration of Christopher Carlin. Dkt. No. 48. The

21

administrative motion moves to seal Exhibit R and Exhibit X to Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial

22

Summary Judgment, Dkt. No. 47 – two internal State Farm training and resource documents that

23

together total ten pages in length. On February 2, 2024, as directed by the Court, Defendant

24

State Farm filed a statement articulating the various justifications for maintaining Exhibits R and

25

X under seal. Dkt. No. 58. That same day, the parties stipulated to dismiss the case in its

26

entirety. Dkt. No. 59. This result mooted Plaintiffs’ Partial Summary Judgment motion before

27

the Court ruled on it or had occasion to consider the exhibits at issue.

28

//
1
Order (as Modified)

1

The Court, having read and considered Plaintiffs’ Administrative Motion and the

2

supporting declaration, Dkt. No. 48, and the statement filed by Defendant State Farm Gen. Ins.

3

Co. and the supporting declaration, Dkt. No. 58, hereby rules on Plaintiffs’ Administrative

4

Motion, Dkt. No. 48, as follows:

5
6

Docket No.
Public/(Sealed)

7

Dkt. No. 47-1/
(Dkt. No. 48-3)

Plaintiffs’
Evidence in
Support of
Motion for
Summary
Judgment

Dkt. No. 47-1/
(Dkt. No. 48-3)

Plaintiffs’
Evidence in
Support of
Motion for
Summary
Judgment

8
9
10
11
12
13

Document

Portion
Sought to be
Sealed
Exhibit R
(Dkt. No. 47-1
at 361)

Exhibit X
(Dkt. No. 47-1
at 522)

Basis to Seal Exhibits

Ruling

Contain confidential
materials that could
injure Defendant’s
competitive advantage
and cannot be protected
through more narrowly
tailored means. Dkt.
No. 58.

Finding good cause,
the Court
GRANTS the
request to seal these
documents in this
now-closed case.
Kamakana v. City
& Cty. of Honolulu,
447 F.3d 1172,
1178 (9th Cir.
2006)

14
15
16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: February 6, 2024

18

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2

Order (as Modified)