Allstate Insurance Company et al v. Balle et al

Filing 336

ORDER Granting in Part Plaintiffs' 333 Motion to Seal. The 334 unredacted motion, declaration, and exhibits will remain under seal. Plaintiffs must file a redacted version of 334 , leaving meaningful information available to the pu blic while still protecting private health information, no later than November 20, 2013. Failure to do so may cause the Court to order the motion filed in the public record. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 11/13/2013. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
9
10
ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, et al.,
11
Plaintiffs,
12
vs.
13
PETER MARIO BALLE, et al.,
14
Defendants.
15

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 2:10-cv-02205-APG-NJK
ORDER GRANTING IN PART
MOTION TO SEAL
(Docket No. 333)

16

Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ motion to seal. Docket No. 333. Plaintiffs seek to file

17

their response to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, the declaration of Eron Z. Cannon in

18

support of their response, and all exhibits attached thereto under seal. See Docket No. 334. Pursuant to

19

the procedure outlined in Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006),

20

Plaintiffs submitted a declaration in support of the motion to seal. Docket No. 333-1. For the reasons

21

discussed below, the Court hereby GRANTS in part the motion to seal.

22

I.

STANDARD

23

The Ninth Circuit has held that there is a strong presumption of public access to judicial records.

24

See Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006); Foltz v. State Farm

25

Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003). A party seeking to file documents under seal

26

bears the burden of overcoming that presumption. Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678

27

(9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178). Parties “who seek to maintain the secrecy of

28

documents attached to dispositive motions must meet the high threshold of showing that ‘compelling

1

reasons’ support secrecy.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1180.1 Those compelling reasons must outweigh the

2

competing interests of the public in having access to the judicial records and understanding the judicial

3

process. Id. at 1178-79; see also Pintos, 605 F.3d at 679 & n.6 (court must weigh “relevant factors,”

4

including the public’s interest in understanding the judicial process). The Ninth Circuit has indicated

5

that “‘compelling reasons’ sufficient to outweigh the public’s interest in disclosure and justify sealing

6

court records exist when such ‘court files might have become a vehicle for improper purposes,’ such as

7

the use of records to . . . release trade secrets.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179.

8

II.

ANALYSIS

9

The documents at issue in the pending motion to seal are Plaintiffs’ response to Defendants’

10

motion for summary judgment, the declaration of Eron Z. Cannon in support of their response, and all

11

exhibits attached thereto. See Docket No. 334. Plaintiffs assert that these documents should be sealed

12

because they pertain to underlying claimants’ medical care and their individual confidential medical

13

records. Docket No. 333, at 3-4.

14
15

In support of the motion to seal, Plaintiffs submitted the declaration of Eron Cannon stating, in
part, that this information:

16

[is] private, protected and privileged information . . .

17

The sealing of documents is necessary for the protection of underlying claimants’
medical care and treatment. There is little or no public interest in the information and
documents . . .

18
19

Docket No. 333, at 2,4.

20

The Court has reviewed Plaintiffs’ response to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, the

21

declaration of Eron Z. Cannon in support of their response, and all exhibits attached thereto, and

22

concludes that the documents contain both information that is traditionally kept secret and information

23

that is not. For example, Plaintiffs’ response references protected health information for certain

24
25
26
27
28

1

Kamakana and Foltz involve non-parties’ attempts to obtain sealed court documents. The same
analysis and standards apply to a party’s motion to seal. See Pintos, 605 F.3d at 679 n.5; see also
Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1182 n.9 (for the case before it, noting that “[t]he effective bottom line is that
the district court was determining whether documents should be sealed”).
2

1

individuals, but it also contains legal arguments and factual information not related to private

2

confidential health care information. This document could be easily redacted. Document 334-1 contains

3

no confidential information whatsoever and is merely an objection to certain evidence submitted by

4

Defendants. Similarly, Document 334-2 contains the exact same information that is already on the public

5

docket in Document 333-1.

6

Accordingly, the Court concludes that although both good cause and compelling reasons exist

7

to seal information that overcomes the presumption of public access, that information has not been

8

properly redacted, and the information within the motion as well as in the exhibits can be easily redacted

9

while leaving meaningful information available to the public.

10

III.

11
12

CONCLUSION
For good cause shown, Plaintiffs’ motion to seal, Docket No. 333, is hereby GRANTED in

part. The unredacted motion, declaration, and exhibits at Docket No. 334 will remain under seal.

13

It is further ordered that Plaintiffs must file a redacted version of Docket No. 334, leaving

14

meaningful information available to the public while still protecting private health information, no later

15

than November 20, 2013. Failure to do so may cause the Court to order the motion filed in the public

16

record.

17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.

19

DATED: November 13, 2013

20
21
22

______________________________________
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge

23
24
25
26
27
28
3