Allstate Insurance Company et al v. Balle et al

Filing 341

ORDER Granting in part Plaintiffs' 338 Motion to Seal. The 339 Un-Redacted Proposed Pretrial Order will remain under seal. The 340 Redacted Proposed Pretrial Order will be unsealed and filed in the public record. Signed by Judge Andrew P. Gordon on 11/19/2013. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 10 11 ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., 12 Plaintiffs, 13 vs. 14 PETER MARIO BALLE, et al., Defendants. 15 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 2:10-cv-02205-APG-NJK ORDER GRANTING IN PART MOTION TO SEAL (Docket No. 338) 16 Pending before the Court is the parties’ joint motion to seal. Docket No. 338. The parties seek 17 to file their proposed joint pre-trial order under seal.1 See Docket No. 339 (un-redacted pre-trial order); 18 see also Docket No. 340 (redacted pre-trial order). Pursuant to the procedure outlined in Kamakana v. 19 City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006), Plaintiffs submitted a declaration in 20 support of the motion to seal. Docket No. 338-1. For the reasons discussed below, the Court hereby 21 GRANTS the motion to seal. 22 ... 23 ... 24 25 1 26 27 28 The parties represent that they believe that the protective order issued by this Court on June 13, 2011, Docket No. 51, is sufficient to allow filing portions of the pre-trial order under seal. Docket No. 338, at 2. The Court reminds the parties of the August 1, 2013, Order issued by this Court which outlines the procedures that apply to any documents filed under seal in this case. See Docket No. 271. All motions to seal must comply with that Order issued by the Court. 1 I. STANDARD 2 The documents at issue in the motion to seal are all related to a non-dispositive motion. The 3 Ninth Circuit has held that there is a presumption of public access to judicial files and records and that 4 parties seeking to maintain the confidentiality of documents attached to non-dispositive motions must 5 make a particularized showing of “good cause” to overcome the presumption of public access. See 6 Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1180 (9th Cir. 2006). To the extent any 7 confidential information can be easily redacted while leaving meaningful information available to the 8 public, the Court must order that redacted versions be filed rather than sealing entire documents. Foltz 9 v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1137 (9th Cir. 2003); see also Vaccine Ctr. LLC v. 10 GlaxoSmithKline LLC, 2013 U.S. Dist. Lexis 68298, *9-10 (D. Nev. May 14, 2013) (discussing 11 redaction requirement). 12 II. ANALYSIS 13 The information at issue in the pending motion to seal includes the underlying claimants’ 14 identification information, medical care and their individual confidential medical records. Docket No. 15 338, at 4-5. The Court finds good cause exists to seal this information that overcomes the presumption 16 of public access. However, as demonstrated by the redacted pre-trial order filed by the parties, that 17 information can be , and was, easily redacted while leaving meaningful information available to the 18 public. 19 The parties have requested that the Court allow the parties to file under seal the portion of the 20 joint pre-trial order that references the names of the underlying claimants and their addresses. The 21 Court hereby grants that request. 22 ... 23 ... 24 ... 25 ... 26 ... 27 ... 28 ... 2 1 III. CONCLUSION 2 For good cause shown, Plaintiffs’ motion to seal, Docket No. 338, is hereby GRANTED. 3 1. The un-redacted proposed pre-trial order, Docket No. 339, will remain under seal. 4 2. The redacted proposed pre-trial order, Docket No. 340, will be unsealed and filed in the 5 public record. 6 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 DATED: November 19, 2013 9 10 11 ______________________________________ ANDREW P. GORDON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?