Ranburn Corporation v. Argonaut Insurance Company et al

Filing 198

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE 180 SEALED MOTION to File Briefs and Exhibits Under Seal. The Court SETS a deadline of January 8, 2019, for the motion to be refiled. If no motion is filed by the deadline, the Court will order all of the documents unsealed. Because there is no request to maintain the instant motion under seal, the Court DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to UNSEAL Plaintiff's Motion to File Briefs and Exhibits Under Seal [DE 180]. Signed by Magistrate Judge Paul R Cherry on 12/19/18. (ksp)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
HAMMOND DIVISION AT LAFAYETTE
RANBURN CORPORATION d/b/a
RANBURN CLEANERS
Plaintiff,
v.
ARGONAUT GREAT CENTRAL
INSURANCE COMPANY, et al.,
Defendants.
NATIONAL FIRE AND INDEMNITY
EXCHANGE,
Counter Claimant,
v.
RANBURN CORPORATION d/b/a
RANBURN CLEANERS
Counterclaim Defendant.
MERIDIAN MUTUAL INSURANCE
COMPANIES n/k/a STATE AUTO
INSURANCE COMPANIES,
Counter Claimant,
v.
RANBURN CORPORATION d/b/a
RANBURN CLEANERS
Counterclaim Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CAUSE NO.: 4:16-CV-88-RL-PRC

OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to File Briefs and Exhibits Under Seal
[DE 180], filed by Ranburn Corporation d/b/a Ranburn Cleaners (“Ranburn”) on December 3,
2018. No response to the motion was filed.

In the motion, which was itself filed under seal, Ranburn asks the Court to order that the
following documents be maintained under seal: Plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate the Court’s March
28, 2018 Order [DE 181], Plaintiff’s Brief in Support of Its Motion to Vacate the Court’s March
28, 2018 Order [DE 182], Ranburn’s Appendix of Exhibits [DE 183], Plaintiff’s Reply in Support
of Its First Motion to Compel [DE 184], and Ranburn’s Appendix of Exhibits [DE 185].
Northern District of Indiana Local Rule 5-3 provides, “No document will be maintained
under seal in the absence of an authorizing statute, Court rule, or Court order.” N.D. Ind. L.R. 53(a). “Documents that affect the disposition of federal litigation are presumptively open to public
view, even if the litigants strongly prefer secrecy, unless a statute, rule, or privilege justifies
confidentiality. In re Specht, 622 F.3d 697, 701 (7th Cir. 2010) “The public has a legitimate interest
in the record compiled in a legal proceeding because the public pays for the courts,” but this interest
may be overridden “if there is good cause for sealing part of the record.” Forst v. Smithkline
Beecham Corp., 602 F. Supp. 2d 960, 974 (E.D. Wis. 2009) (citing Citizens First Nat’l Bank of
Princeton v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 178 F.3d 943, 944-45 (7th Cir. 1999)). “Any step that withdraws
an element of the judicial process from public view makes the ensuing decision look more like fiat
and requires rigorous justification” by the Court. Hicklin, 439 F.3d at 348. A litigant must justify
the claim of secrecy, analyzing the applicable legal criteria. Citizens First, 178 F.3d at 945; see
also, e.g., Cty. Materials Corp. v. Allan Block Corp., 502 F.3d 730, 740 (7th Cir. 2007); Baxter
Int’l v. Abbott Lab., 297 F.3d 544, 547 (7th Cir. 2002); Union Oil Co. v. Leavell, 220 F.3d 562,
568 (7th Cir. 2000).
Ranburn asserts that sealing these documents is proper because they contain information
protected by the insurer-insured privilege and other confidential information. Ranburn further

2

states that the information in the documents could have an impact on Ranburn’s defense in another
lawsuit filed against it by 3933 Cleveland Street Partners, LLC. 1
The documents sought to be maintained under seal collectively contain approximately 200
pages of documents. The motion seeking to keep these documents under seal contains only 5
substantive paragraphs. By supplying the Court with only general assertions of privilege and
confidentiality, not grounding these assertions in case law, statute, or rule, and not identifying how
those assertions apply to all of the documents sought to be maintained under seal, 2 Ranburn has
not overcome the presumption that the documents should be open to public view. Therefore, the
motion is denied, though without prejudice.
Based on the foregoing, the Court hereby DENIES without prejudice Plaintiff’s Motion
to File Briefs and Exhibits Under Seal [DE 180]. The Court SETS a deadline of January 8, 2019,
for the motion to be refiled. If no motion is filed by the deadline, the Court will order all of the
documents unsealed.
Because there is no request to maintain the instant motion under seal, the Court DIRECTS
the Clerk of Court to UNSEAL Plaintiff’s Motion to File Briefs and Exhibits Under Seal [DE
180].
So ORDERED this 19th day of December, 2018.
s/ Paul R. Cherry
MAGISTRATE JUDGE PAUL R. CHERRY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

1
There are three motions to amend pleadings pending in the instant litigation, which, if granted, would add 3933
Cleveland Street Partners, LLC as a party. Those motions are not yet fully briefed.
2
For example, Ranburn seeks to have sealed the Complaint filed against it by 3933 Cleveland Street Partners, LLC in
a separate litigation. It is not apparent to the Court how this document is protectable for the generally stated reasons
of privilege and confidentiality, nor how Ranburn’s defense in that litigation would be harmed by disclosure.

3