Laird v. United of Omaha Life Insurance Company

Filing 31

ORDER granting 28 Motion for Leave to File the Administrative Record Under Seal, and Requiring Redaction of Portions of the Record to be Used at Trial or in Dispositive Motions. Signed by Judge Larry Alan Burns on 10/6/16. (kas)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

CHRISTI LAIRD,

12
13

CASE NO. 15cv2205-LAB (JMA)
Plaintiff,

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR
LEAVE TO FILE THE
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD UNDER
SEAL; AND

vs.

14
15
16

ORDER REQUIRING REDACTION OF
PORTIONS OF THE RECORD TO BE
USED AT TRIAL OR IN DISPOSITIVE
MOTIONS

UNITED OF OMAHA LIFE INSURANCE
CO.,
Defendant.

17
18
19

Plaintiff Christi Laird brings claims under the Employee Retirement Income Security

20

Act of 1974 (ERISA), for denial of disability benefits. No motions are pending, but a bench

21

trial is scheduled for November 2, 2016.

22

Defendant United of Omaha has filed an unopposed motion (Docket no. 28) for leave

23

to file the entire administrative record (Docket no. 29) under seal. The motion cites the “good

24

cause” standard for sealing. It points out that the record is nearly 1,250 pages long, and is

25

peppered with personally-identifiable information such as Laird’s social security number and

26

date of birth. Some of the record consists of images, so even if the parties attempted to

27

redact the record electronically, there is a significant chance some of it would be missed.

28

Redacting the entire record manually would be expensive and time-consuming. The motion

-1-

15cv2205

1

does not offer an explanation of what the record will be used for, but at this time it is not

2

being offered in support of any dispositive motion or matter.

3

To the extent the record will be cited in nondispositive motions or used for other

4

preliminary, non-dispositive purposes, the “good cause” standard governs. See Oliner v.

5

Kontrabecki, 745 F.3d 1024, 1026 (9th Cir. 2014); Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d

6

665, 678 (9th Cir. 2009). The Court finds good cause for sealing the record for nondispositive

7

purposes, and the motion is GRANTED.

8

To the extent the record will be used either at trial or in support of any dispositive

9

motion, the “compelling reasons” standard governs. See Oliner, 745 F.3d at 1026–27;

10

Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178–80, 1182 (9th Cir. 2006).

11

That standard is not likely to be met here, because using excerpts of the record would

12

undercut much of the argument concerning the expense and difficulty of redaction.

13

If the parties anticipate using the record for such purposes, they should begin

14

selecting and redacting the portions they expect to use, and they should prepare a list of the

15

specific type of information being redacted from each excerpt as well as the reasons why it

16

must be redacted. See id. at 1183–84 (government was required to offer compelling

17

reasons for redacting information from records). Before offering redacted exhibits, they

18

should be prepared to show compelling reasons for any redactions. See id. And they should

19

not expect to be permitted to offer any sealed exhibits at all, unless they can establish a

20

compelling reason why the entire exhibit must be sealed.

21
22
23
24

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: October 6, 2016

25
26

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS
United States District Judge

27
28
-2-

15cv2205