Ayers v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company et al

Filing 102

ORDER denying 97 Motion to Seal. Signed by Magistrate Judge Thomas B. Smith on 3/26/2018. (Smith, Thomas)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION
FRANK AYERS,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 6:17-cv-1265-Orl-37TBS

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE
INSURANCE COMPANY, RUTH MIER
GRAHAM and GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendants.
ORDER
For the reasons that follow, State Farm’s Motion for Leave to File Summary
Judgment Exhibit Under Seal (Doc. 97), is due to be denied. State Farm seeks leave of
Court to file a page from its internal Claims Handing Manual, entitled “Claims Activity
Processing>Retain Counsel/Company Attorney-Other than Litigation” under seal. The
page is Exhibit E to State Farm’s pending motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff
opposes the motion (Doc. 101).
The public enjoys a qualified common-law right of access to judicial proceedings.
See generally Chicago Tribune Co. v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 263 F.3d 1304 (11th
Cir. 2001). The right applies to all material submitted “in connection with a substantive
motion,” and it requires the Court to balance the interest of the parties in keeping the
information confidential with the interest of the public in making it available. Id. at 1312–
13. In balancing these interests “courts consider, among other factors, whether allowing
access would impair court functions or harm legitimate privacy interests, the degree of
and likelihood of injury if made public, the reliability of the information, whether there will

be an opportunity to respond to the information, whether the information concerns public
officials or public concerns, and the availability of a less onerous alternative to sealing the
documents.” Romero v. Drummond Co., 480 F.3d 1234, 1246 (11th Cir. 2007).
In this district, a party seeking to file information under seal must first comply
with the procedural requirements in Local Rule 1.09. The moving party must file a motion
to seal, identifying and describing each item proposed for sealing. Id. The motion must
also include: (1) the reason that filing each item is necessary; (2) the reason that sealing
each item is necessary; (3) the reason that a means other than sealing is unavailable or
unsatisfactory to preserve the interest advanced by the movant in support of the seal; (4)
the proposed duration of the seal; and (5) a memorandum of legal authority supporting
the seal. Id.
State Farm has identified the page it wishes to seal, contends that it is an internal
document not disclosed to third parties, and argues that sealing is “essential to protect
State Farm’s interest in preventing the dissemination of its confidential claims manual that
was disclosed to the Plaintiff in discovery in this matter” (Doc. 97 at 2). State Farm
contends that filing the page under seal is the only means available to permit the Court to
review it without public dissemination of the information. It seeks a seal for three years,
but states that if would agree to a sealing for a lesser duration.
The motion fails because State Farm has already disclosed the relevant
information in its motion for summary judgment which states:
12. In its internal Claims Handling Manual, in a section
entitled: Claims Activity Processing>Retain Counsel/Company
Attorney-Other than Litigation,” State Farm expressly advises
its employees: “Occasionally, it is appropriate to retain the
services of counsel for assistance with other than litigation
matters.” Ex. E at 1 (AYERS 00002140PROD
(CONFIDENTIAL).[] The manual provides examples such as

-2-

to “conduct examination under oath, court-approved
settlements, and legal analysis of coverage opinions.” Id.
13. According to the manual, to retain an attorney pre-suit, a
claims specialist must get approval from a team manager,
who discusses the merits of retention with the claims
representative, and makes the determination. Ex. E at 1.
(Doc. 87, ¶¶ 12, 13) (Emphasis in original, footnote omitted).
State Farm’s disclosure is inconsistent with its claim of confidentiality. If there is
other information on the page that is confidential, then State Farm has not referred to it,
even obliquely, in its motion for summary judgment. Nor has State Farm explained why
any irrelevant, confidential information cannot be redacted. The motion to seal is
DENIED.
DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on March 26, 2018.

Copies furnished to Counsel of Record

-3-