Fidelity National Financial, Inc. et al v. National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA et al

Filing 411

ORDER RE: Pending Motions [Doc. Nos. #319 , #320 , #321 , #324 , #325 , #326 . The Court Grants #384 Plaintiff's Ex Parte Motion for Leave to File an opposition to Defendant's request for judicial notice; The Court Denies #403 Motion to File Documents Under Seal. Counsel shall promptly provide a courtesy copy of the unredacted brief to chambers. Signed by Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel on 5/21/2013. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(srm)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10
11

FIDELTY NATIONAL FINANCIAL,
INC., CHICAGO TITLE
INSURANCE CO., and CHICAGO
TITLE CO.,

14

ORDER RE: PENDING MOTIONS

Plaintiffs,
vs.
NATIONAL UNION FIRE
INSURANCE CO. OF PITTSBURG,
PA,

15

CASE NO. 09-CV-140-GPC-KSC

Defendant.

12
13

16

In October 2012, two summary judgment motions accompanied by four
17 Daubert motions were transferred to the under-signed judge. [Doc. Nos. 319, 320,
18 321, 324, 325, 326]. Thereafter, Magistrate Judge Karen S. Crawford denied
19 Plaintiffs’ motion for sanctions against Defendant,1 and Plaintiffs appeal that
20 decision. [Doc. Nos. 395 & 398]
21

The Court will notify counsel of a hearing date in the near future. In the

22 interim, the Court resolves three housekeeping matters.
23

First, Plaintiffs filed briefs with their motions for partial summary judgment

24 and motion to exclude Dean Felton’s testimony, and subsequently submitted
25 “notices of errata” containing a list of several changes to the briefs and attaching
26 corrected exhibits. [Doc. Nos. 324-1, 326-1, 337, & 388] Local Civil Rule 15.1
27 states that an amended document “must be retyped and filed so that it is complete in
28
1

The other four defendants have been dismissed. [Doc. Nos. 120, 121, & 142]
-1-

09CV140

1 itself without reference to the superseded pleading.” While the Court will accept
2 the corrected exhibits in the form submitted, Plaintiffs shall, within seven days, file
3 a “First Amended Memorandum of Points of Authorities in Support of Plaintiffs’
4 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment” and a “First Amended Memorandum of
5 Points of Authorities in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion to Exclude Opinions and
6 Testimony of Dean P. Felton” that complies with the Local Rule. As before, the
7 Court grants leave to file a 28-page summary judgment brief. Counsel shall deliver
8 courtesy copies to chambers.
9

Second, the Court grants Plaintiffs’ ex parte motion to file an opposition to

10 Defendant’s request for judicial notice. [Doc. No. 384] While the Court overrules
11 Defendant’s objection, Defendant may file a two-page reply brief within fourteen
12 days.
13

Finally, Plaintiffs timely object to the Magistrate Judge’s Order Denying

14 Sanctions. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). Defendant requests leave to file its responsive
15 brief under seal because it contains references to confidential documents.
16

This request is overbroad. There is a presumptive right of public access to

17 court records based upon the common law and the first amendment. See Nixon v.
18 Warner Comm., Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978); Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v.
19 General Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1212-13 (9th Cir. 2002). Nonetheless,
20 access may be denied to protect sensitive confidential information. E.g., KL Group
21 v. Case, Kay, & Lynch, 829 F.2d 909, 917-19 (9th Cir. 1987) (letter to client from
22 attorney); Kalinauskas v. Wong, 151 F.R.D. 363, 365-67 (D. Nev.1993)
23 (confidential settlement agreement). Parties seeking a sealing order must provide a
24 specific description of particular documents and affidavits showing good cause to
25 protect those documents from disclosure. Documents filed under seal will be
26 limited to only those documents, or portions thereof, necessary to protect such
27 sensitive information.
28

Consequently, the Court denies the motion to seal the entire memorandum of
-2-

09CV140

1 points of authorities. [Doc. No. 403] Most of the information in a legal brief can be
2 disclosed to the public without violating the protective order. The Court instructs
3 counsel to redact only those portions of the brief that disclose confidential
4 information and to file a redacted brief on the public record within fourteen days of
5 the filing of this order.2 Counsel shall promptly provide a courtesy copy of the
6 unredacted brief to chambers.
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8
9 DATED: May 21, 2013
10
HON. GONZALO P. CURIEL
United States District Judge

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

2

Any member of the public may challenge the sealing of a particular document.
See Citizens First Nat'l Bank of Princeton v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 178 F.3d 943, 944-45
28 (7th Cir. 1999).
-3-

09CV140