Meyer v. UNUM Life Insurance Company of America et al

Filing 82

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER overruling the parties' 65 Joint Motion For Leave To File Exhibits Under Seal, and Defendants' 74 Unopposed Motion For Leave To File Exhibits Under Seal. Signed by Chief Judge Kathryn H. Vratil on 03/19/2014. (mg)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
JOHN V. MEYER,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNUM LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY OF AMERICA, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL ACTION
No. 12-1134-KHV

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
John Meyer brings suit against UNUM Life Insurance Company of America and UNUM
Group (collectively “UNUM”) for recovery of benefits under a long-term disability insurance policy.
This matter comes before the Court on the parties’ Joint Motion For Leave To File Exhibits Under
Seal (Doc. #65) filed January 20, 2014, and Defendants’ Unopposed Motion For Leave To File
Exhibits Under Seal (Doc. #74) filed February 21, 2014.
In their joint motion (Doc. #65), the parties ask the Court to enter an order allowing them
to file under seal certain exhibits to their summary judgment briefs. The first exhibit is the
administrative record, which they seek to file under seal to prevent disclosure of plaintiff’s medical
information not relevant to this case and of numerous personal identifiers of plaintiff. The parties
concede that they could redact such information but conclusively state that it would be unwieldy and
burdensome to do so. They also state that irrespective of the sealed nature of the filing, the parties
and the Court could freely discuss the relevant medical information in their public filings. The
parties seek to file under seal three additional exhibits for the stated reason that defendants have

designated them confidential under the terms of the protective order.1 See Protective Order (Doc.
#44) filed June 17, 2013.
In defendants’ motion (Doc. #74), UNUM asks the Court to enter an order allowing them
to file under seal Exhibits 4 and 5 to their brief in opposition to plaintiff’s motion for summary
judgment. Both exhibits contain excerpts of UNUM’s claims manual, and UNUM designated both
documents confidential under the protective order. UNUM asserts that its claims manual represents
proprietary or trade secret information, the disclosure of which would give its competitors an
unearned competitive advantage by disclosing methods and practices for how UNUM conducts its
business.
Federal courts have long recognized a common law right of access to judicial records. Helm
v. Kansas, 656 F.3d 1277, 1292 (10th Cir. 2011); Mann v. Boatright, 477 F.3d 1140, 1149
(10th Cir. 2007). This right derives from the public’s interest in understanding disputes that are
presented to a public forum for resolution and is intended to ensure that courts are fair and judges
are honest. Crystal Grower’s Corp. v. Dobbins, 616 F.2d 458, 461 (10th Cir. 1980); Worford v. City
of Topeka, No. 03-2450-JWL, 2004 WL 316073, at *1 (D. Kan. Feb. 17, 2004). The public’s right
of access, however, is not absolute. Helm, 656 F.3d at 1292. The Court therefore has discretion to
seal documents if competing interests outweigh the public’s right of access. Id.; United States v.

1

The three exhibits are Plaintiff’s Exhibits C, H and I. Exhibit I was also the subject of
defendants’ motion which sought to have the Court enforce the document’s confidential treatment
under the protective order. See Defendant UNUM Life Insurance Company Of America’s Motion To
Enforce ECF Administrative Procedures And Protective Order (Doc. #55) filed November 6, 2013.
Magistrate Judge Gale has entered an order denying defendants’ motion. See Memorandum & Order
On Motion For Protective Order (Doc. #76) filed February 27, 2014. Defendants’ motion (Doc. #55)
was tantamount to a motion to file under seal, and Judge Gale’s order renders moot the parties’ joint
motion (Doc. #65) with respect to Exhibit I.
-2-

Hickey, 767 F.2d 705, 708 (10th Cir. 1985). In exercising its discretion, the Court weighs the
public’s interests, which it presumes are paramount, against those advanced by the parties. Helm,
656 F.3d at 1292. The party seeking to overcome the presumption of public access to the documents
bears the burden of showing some significant interest that outweighs the presumption. Helm, 656
F.3d at 1292; Mann, 477 F.3d at 1149.
The parties concede that they could redact the personal identifiers and irrelevant medical
records contained in the administrative record, but that doing so would be unwieldy and
burdensome. The task of redacting does not rise to a significant interest that outweighs the public’s
right of access. Moreover, the parties undercut their argument by agreeing that they and the Court
could freely discuss the relevant medical information in public filings, thereby negating any notion
that the documents should be shielded from public view. As for plaintiff’s Exhibits C and H, the
parties’ conclusory statement that UNUM has designated them confidential does not suggest why
this information, if disclosed, might be harmful to either party. Finally, as for defendants’ Exhibits
4 and 5, the Court does not accept UNUM’s conclusory and speculative statement that their
competitors would have an unearned competitive advantage if excerpts of UNUM’s claims manual
are not filed under seal. The Court has reviewed Exhibits 4 and 5 and finds that UNUM has not met
its burden of showing a significant interest which outweighs the public’s right of access.
As in Helm, the parties have not articulated a substantial interest that justifies overriding the
public’s substantial interest in access to court records. The Court therefore overrules the motions
to file under seal.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the parties’ Joint Motion For Leave To File Exhibits
Under Seal (Doc. #65) filed January 20, 2014, and Defendants’ Unopposed Motion For Leave To

-3-

File Exhibits Under Seal (Doc. #74) filed February 21, 2014 be and hereby are OVERRULED.
Dated this 19th day of March, 2014 at Kansas City, Kansas.

s/ Kathryn H. Vratil
KATHRYN H. VRATIL
United States District Judge

-4-