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)
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?