Gallegos v. The Prudential Insurance Company of America

Filing 41

ORDER GRANTING 39 MOTION TO SEAL. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 4/3/2017. (blflc4, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/3/2017)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5

SAN JOSE DIVISION

6
7

LISA GALLEGOS,

8

Plaintiff,

11

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
SEAL

v.

9
10

Case No. 16-cv-01268-BLF

THE PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE
COMPANY OF AMERICA,

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Defendant.
12
Before the Court is the parties’ joint administrative motion to file under seal administrative

13
14

record of Plaintiff Lisa Gallegos. ECF 39. For the reasons stated below, the motion is

15

GRANTED.

16
17

I.

LEGAL STANDARD
There is a “strong presumption in favor of access” to judicial records. Kamakana v. City &

18

Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto.

19

Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). A party seeking to seal judicial records bears the

20

burden of overcoming this presumption by articulating “compelling reasons supported by specific

21

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

22

disclosure.” Id. at 1178-79. Compelling reasons for sealing court files generally exist when such

23

“‘court files might have become a vehicle for improper purposes,’ such as the use of records to

24

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

25

secrets.” Id. (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978)). However,

26

“[t]he mere fact that the production of records may lead to a litigant’s embarrassment,

27

incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will not, without more, compel the court to seal its

28

records.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179. Ultimately, “[w]hat constitutes a ‘compelling reason’ is

1

‘best left to the sound discretion of the trial court.’” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrslyer Grp., LLC,

2

809 F.3d 1092, 1097 (9th Cir. 2016).
“Despite this strong preference for public access, [the Ninth Circuit has] carved out an

3
4

exception,” id. at 1097, for judicial records attached to motions that are “tangentially related to the

5

merits of a case,” id. at 1101. Parties moving to seal such records need only make a

6

“particularized showing” under the “good cause” standard of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

7

26(c). Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1180 (quoting Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1138).

8
9

In this District, parties seeking to seal judicial records must furthermore follow Civil Local
Rule 79-5, which requires, inter alia, that a sealing request be “narrowly tailored to seek sealing
only of sealable material.” Civil L.R. 79-5(b) (emphasis added). Where the submitting party

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

seeks to file under seal a document designated confidential by another party, the burden of

12

articulating compelling reasons for sealing is placed on the designating party. Id. 79-5(e).

13
14

II.

DISCUSSION
The Court has reviewed the parties’ sealing motion and the declaration of Sevana

15

Babooian in support thereof. According to the declaration, the entire administrative record should

16

be sealed because the majority of the documents therein contain Plaintiff’s confidential medical

17

and financial information. Babboian Decl., ECF 39-1 ¶¶ 4-5. Given the size of the administrative

18

record and the amount of personal information contained therein, the parties argue that redacting

19

such information would be inefficient, impractical, and would place an undue burden on the

20

parties. Id. ¶ 6.

21

The Court finds that the “compelling” standard applies, as the administrative record is

22

related to the merits of a case. Because the majority of documents in the administrative record

23

contain Plaintiff’s confidential personal information, they are appropriately sealable. E.g., Doe v.

24

UNUM Life Ins. Co. of Am., 164 F. Supp. 3d 1140, 1147 (N.D. Cal. 2016) (ordering the

25

administrative record to be filed under seal); Doe v. PricewaterhouseCoopers Health & Welfare

26

Benefit Plan, No. 13-02710-JSW, 2014 WL 2737840, at *1 n.1 (N.D. Cal. June 11, 2014) (same).

27
28
2

1

III.

ORDER
For the foregoing reasons, the sealing motion at ECF 39 is GRANTED.

2
3
4
Dated: April 3, 2017
5
6
7

______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3